Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

@Fergus: I have moved the Interactive Diagram that was somewhere down in the comments section into your article, replacing the diagram of the initial setup. (Your original image is still there, within <noscript> tags for those who have JavaScript disabled.) It tried to mimic the original image as much as possible, without resorting to a dedicated background image of the whole board. I hope this is OK with you.

(N.B. Flush the browser cache to use the latest Diagram script, as the previous one did not 'bleach' the dark color for the odd files when displayiong a move diagram.)

You can play this with the latest ChessV release candidate: ChessV 2.3 RC2

Just unzip and run the EXE.

The ZoG file doesn't seem to work, giving error 'The following bitmap couldn't be loaded: "images\boards\rwb10x10bmp" '

If you could advise on a fix, I'd love to play this

@Fergus, For this game is perfect, the way you did it. I meant as an option. I see it better is 4 colors when I move knight riders. At least on a 12x12. That is it, and it is not possible anyway with the interactive diagram. It is possible with presets and tried a picture and liked it.

and for myself in another how do I do it with 4 shades -yellow and silver not just silver with yellow at the same ranks as cherry and silver at the same ranks with dark blue- although I know Fergus does not consider this necessary

I consider it not just unnecessary but undesirable. I already tried Cavalier Chess with four colors back when I created it, and it was harder to make sense of than a three-color board. Besides that, this game's board uses the three colors of the British flag. Any fourth color would be arbitrary and make the board look less British.

Extra shades is not a standard feature of the diagram, in the sense that it cannot be specified by a parameter in the Diagram definition, like startShade=.... can specify an alternative darkShade for making the diagram look nicer when it hasn't been used yet. The script does have an internal variable, though, that you can set by adding extra JavaScript on the page, like

      <script>oddShade = "#E04040";</script>

This would define an alternative startShade for the dark squares with odd coordinates.

There is no provision for an alternative lightShade.

HG, I still have not understood how you implemented the three shades or how I would implement 4 shades :)!

Found it. Thanks Kelvin!

It does have one in the comments

This game does not yet an interactive diagram, despite being a popular game here. @HG, Should I attempt one how do I write the shades function for this one (and for myself in another how do I do it with 4 shades -yellow and silver not just silver with yellow at the same ranks as cherry and silver at the same ranks with dark blue- although I know Fergus does not consider this necessary)?. Also for the Royal piece what should I do? I remember you guiding wdtr2 in something similar.

Done, and I moved the ASCII diagram to the ALT text of the image.

The graphic diagram on this page is very small for some reason.  Don't think it was always that way.  I will fix in a few days if Fergus doesn't.

Love the rebuild of chess. It's less a variant and more a unique offering, like shogi as example.

I'd say two things surprised me. In changing almost every piece on the board was there any thought of a different approach to the pawn?

And, of more interest, doing something to save te knight from its 'pasted on feel', the only real disappointment with the game so far? It woul be rare that promotion to a knight would be a better option than a taken piece IMO so I doubt knights get much play.

Perhaps making them a 'Veteran Knight' knight/camel combined move would help.

Or, allowing promotion to a knight on 8 and 9 row, to anything captured in 10th. In that was a knight might be better option as it arrives to the fray earlier.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Since a royal Queen cannot move through check, it can be checkmated in many of the same positions that would checkmate a King. For example, if a Rook or Bishop is checking it from more than one space away, it cannot capture the checking piece. If you replace it with a royal Chancellor, that piece now has up to 12 possible leaping moves, which is more than the royal Queen has. However, this is fewer than the royal piece in Cavalier Chess has, and checkmate is doable in that game. The main thing would be to design the army to complement the powers of the royal Chancellor. Extra diagonal pieces might be helpful, since it's going to be vulnerable to diagonal attacks. Maybe pieces with Camel or Zebra powers would be helpful too.

The Queen as a royal makes it harder to get it into checkmate IMO.  Making the chancellor royal would make it even harder to obtain checkmate.  Imagine the queen on rank 8, and 2 enemy rooks on rank 8 and 7.  The queen can attack the rook on rank 8, and the rook on rank 7 is acting as a barrier so that the queen must stay on rank 8.  If the rook on rank 8 is protected it is checkmate.  If we replace the queen with chancellor, the chancellor can escape with a horse movement to rank 6.  I think if you made the chancellor a royal, a lot of games would be drawn, due to lack of pieces to make a check, or the 50 move rule.  A royal chancellor has an improved ability to escape and move out of checkmate.

I wonder if German chess (with chancellor as the royal piece) would be a viable game

A fresh idea for a variant that at first made me wonder if the game was truly playable. The answer is a resounding yes!

Okay, that makes sense. In other words, a Queen cannot pass through check, because another piece could capture it while it is on the move, as it passes by so to speak, not just when it has reached its destination, and this is the same kind of thing that is happening when a Pawn is captured en passant.

More generally 'en passant' (french for 'while passing') means that you capture a piece not on the square where it is, but on a square it passed through on the preceding move. In orthodox Chess Pawns can capture other Pawns en passant, and any piece can capture a King en passant (which, due to the rule that it is not legal to expose your King to capture, then means you cannot pass through check, and only applies to castling, as normal King moves never pass through anything).

In Caissa Britannia the royal piece does have normal moves that do pass through other squares.

H. G., what do you mean by "the interpretation that the Royal Queen can be taken en passant by any other piece"? As I understand the term en passant, all it applies to in this game is one Pawn capturing another.

What if we use the Chu Shogi Lion?

colour-switch bishop amazing idea what is its relative value if we changed it with colour-bound bishop in fide chess is same as rook or less  

H.G.,

I think the bishop is named anglican, not angelican!

T.R. Dawson didn't invent the leo. You must be confused with the grasshopper

Maybe I missed this comment earlier. I didn't confuse it with the Grasshopper. In A Guide to Fairy Chess, Anthony Dickins writes,

Now we meet a small family of pieces that must hop in order to capture over one man of either colour to any square beyond that man on the same line; but when not capturing, they move on their normal designated lines. The LEO moves like a Queen, the PAO moves like a Rook and the VAO moves like a Bishop. They were introduced by T. R. Dawson from Chinese Chess, probably before 1914. (p. 11)

Since the Leo and the Vao are not actually in Chinese Chess,  the assumption here is that he invented these pieces. If anyone has a reference to an earlier creation of the Leo, I would be happy to see it.

I wonder what will be of the game once the monarch becomes male. Will there be a new game in that case?

Scotland is represented heraldically by Unicorn, it says in the second sentence of Caissa Britannia rules.  Now Scotland may secede this September from United Kingdom, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-13326310*, thus ending 300 years of union since Act of Settlement and 400 years since James VI of Scotland became James I of "Great Britain" after Elizabeth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701.

Scotia needs own CVs, and respectful to C. Britannia well-thought-out Rules, one can be subvariant of Caissa Britannia by taking the Unicorns with them and replacing with four Knights.  So "Caissa Scotia" is the same except not only new promotion exclusively to Knight, but also two Horses per side to start.

There is also Scottish Progressive Chess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_chess) already existing.  Friedlander's form of Scottish is better, where each sequence ends early upon either Check or move to threatened square, White moving once then Black twice then White three times, and so on.  Scottish Progressive Caissa Britannia may yet save Uni(cor)n, not to have separate Scotland and England all over again. 

It appears too the most prolific CVer of all time Charles Gilman has nary Scottish-themed CV within his river and place series, although Scotland approaches 9% of United Kingdom in population and 33% land area.

[*High "undecided": http:http://whatscotlandthinks.org/opinion-polls]

in reply to J Andrew Lipscomb's comment: thanks, I didn't understand because the page comments that Dragons can efficiently block Queens, but this could just be because Alibabas have restricted Queen-shaped moves.

 The second part was there apparently (literal), I just missed it.

"Also, do Dragons block Queens as Alibabariders usually move, or can they block Queens on the squares they leap over (As a semi-leaping Queen)?"

As I read it, Dragons have no influence whatsoever on the squares they leap. For example, a Dragon on d1, controlling the line d3-d5-d7-d9, would not stop an opposing Queen moving a6-h6, crossing at odd distance from the Dragon.

"On one other note, why promote your pawns to Knights rather than Unicorns?"

In order to promote to a Unicorn, you must have lost one of your starting Unicorns.

One way to formulate it is that the royal Queen can be captured 'en passant' by any other piece. This would not preclude it capturing the opponent royal Queen anymore than any other form of protection would prevent it.

The way of taming a royal queen was an excellent idea.

Also, do Dragons block Queens as Alibabariders usually move, or can they block Queens on the squares they leap over (As a semi-leaping Queen)?

On one other note, why promote your pawns to Knights rather than Unicorns?

Okay, another legal possibility:

W Qa1 Lb1 Pb3 ; B Qb9

Is it legal for the black Queen to capture the pawn ?

(I assume it is not, because it's in the same sense it can't capture the
rook.)

David is surely correct. Black's Queen is not in check so how can moving
it along the shared line of movement with the Lion put it in check? For
the Lion to capture the Queen, there must be a third piece between them to
act as a screen: Qh1, Qi1, or Qj1 being interpreted as check means that
Black's Queen is being used as its own screen.

A legal possibilty:

W Qe2 Le1 ; B Qg1

the squares h1-j1 are all attacked by the Lion. Is it legal for the Black
Queen to move to thes squares ? (Technically, once the move is done, the
square is attacked no more.)

I noticed the Chess set too. (I didn't like the movie though.)

Btw, has any one thought of a 'DaVinci Chess' ?)

This game, I don't know why, keeps me awake repeating its name in my mind,
on and on.

Just loved it!

Fegus, beware... You are too close from the truth... The Grail... The Holy
Blood! I guess uoy saw The Da Vinci Code in the movies, if you look well,
you'll see at Sir Ian McKellen's house a chess set in the studio where
they explain about the plot. A very nice chess set, by the way.

I have a question regarding the rules. A Queen may not cross a square
threatened by the enemy, and the Two Queens can't face each other,
because they will both be in check.

What if the Enemy Queen was stuck in the last rank by a Rook or two
Dragons, is it possible to deliver check from a far by the Queen ? She is
not in check because the Enemy Queen can't get there, so I don't see why
not.

Looking back over the previous postings, I realized that I had not given
this game an evaluation.

Let me first say that I have a special bias toward the 10x10 field, and
always look for a good game to play on it.  Examples too numerous to list
here.

If all that has been used to judge this game is its Zillions
implementation, a player will not correctly experience this game. 
Zillions has a tendency to over-value a few of the pieces, and its
strategic 'thought' process is quite lacking.  Until someone develops a
decent DLL engine, this game is best played between living opponents.  And
please understand that this is not a negative evaluation of Zillions, a
great game engine that is designed for general game play.

I've had the joy of playing this game against a young relative recently. 
Granted we were not that expert in play and at first got movements of a
couple of pieces confused but we very much enjoyed several games.  It had
a slight XiangQi feel to it, with the whole playing field acting as
the 'palace'.  

[I have several plastic chess sets with pieces trimmed with gold paint to
denote special powers.  We use modified Bishops for Unicorns, modified
Rooks for Lions and modified Knights for Dragons.]

The ability to move through check to capture the enemy Queen is the power
that keeps Queens from being able to check each other. On an otherwise
empty board, suppose that White has a Queen at e1 and a Rook at b1, while
Black has a Queen at a9. If Queens did not have the ability to move
through check to capture an enemy Queen, then White could check the Black
Queen by moving the White Queen to e9. Since the Rook would impair the
Black Queen's ability to move over b9, the White Queen could freely pass
over it to a9. So the White Queen could check the Black Queen without
being in check from it. But as the rules of British Chess stand, the move
of 'Q e1-e9' would put both Queens in mutual check and be illegal. It
would be mutual check because of the Queen's ability to pass over checked
squares on a move to capture the enemy Queen. Such a move would never
actually happen, because the preconditions for it are illegal, and those
preconditions are made illegal by the Queen's power to otherwise make
such a move.

In Chess, pieces have the power to capture the enemy King, and the only
reason they don't is that it is illegal for a player to keep his King in
a position it could be captured from, and when this can't be done, the
game ends before the capture can be made. The same is true for capturing
Queens in British Chess. Queens have the power to capture each other, but
there will never come a time in the game when one can use that power to
capture the other. This power affects the game only through the
restrictions it puts on the movement of Queens. The restrictions that
follows from this power is that Queens may never face each other across
any empty orthogonal or diagonal line of movement, and restrictions on a
Queen's movement never restrict its power to restrict which spaces the
opposing Queen may pass over. So, in the example I gave, it would be
illegal for the White Queen to move from e1 to e10, because that move
would pass over e9, which is covered by the Black Queen.

I am not understanding these 2 sentences:
'The queen may not move into or through check - except to capture the
enemy queen. This is like the king in chess, which may never move into
check except to capture the enemy king...'
How can a royal piece capture its' opposite number without first putting
both itself and the opponent's royal piece in check, which I always
thought was illegal? I'd love to at least push the pieces around for this
game, (especially since it's destined, apparently, to be in the 2nd
tournament) but until I understand the above 2 sentences, I can't.
Someone please explain.

That ladt comment came out wrong. Please ignore it. That's what happens
when I feel in a hurry to stick up for mycompatrioots. Here is the
corercted version:

Firstly, yes I did omit the word not. That needs pointing out quickly. The
sentence should read 'There must be dozens of possible names that would
suit it better and have the advantage of not being offensive.' What you
call harassment, I call helping you fulfil you professed wish to not
insult the British. If you do not like any of my suggestions, then ask for
help elsewhere. This is an immediate reaction, and I will submit a more
thought-out comment once I have written it offline.

I like the way this game addresses the problem of the too-powerful royal
piece (which can make it hard to win the game) by the rule that the queen
cannot slide through check. That seems original and yet chesslike, and
sounds likely to do the trick. The explanation on this page was a little
hard for me to decipher, however: I'd suggest rephrasing somehow to
remove the reference to queens capturing other queens. Is 'cover' as you
use it here a standard chess term? I hadn't run across it yet.

I wish the board had a fourth color, so that each dragon would be
restricted to squares of one color. 

Shouldn't there be a piece for Ireland? A Harp, perhaps? No idea what it
would do, though.

'There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and
have the advantage of being offensive.' Surely Charles simply forgot to
type the word 'not' in this sentence.

'the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.' I
imagine Charles G's use of 'brutish' harks back to the use of 'brute'
to mean 'beast,' which is comprehensible enough. The idea that a CV
inventor's choice of a name should be second-guessed at length is
certainly odd, though.

Charles Gilman wrote:

I have NEVER mentioned the Lion in my comments on this variant, so your accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice is unfounded abuse, and it happens to be untrue. Changing their relative powers would not help.

Then I apologize for that much. My memories must have gotten messed up.

have you had any positive British response to this variant?

Aside from harrassment from you, I'm not aware of any British response.

It may be a perfectly playable game, but its theme does not work well enough to warrant the name British Chess.

I'm glad you think well enough of the game. But the theme of the game is Britain. You're not going to find a more British theme than that. The name was never an afterthought to the game. The theme came first, and the game grew out of the theme.

In every historic real British variant that I can think of, Bishop means what it means in FIDE Chess.

So what? It is not a historic variant. It is not a regional variant. It is a thematic variant.

There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and have the advantage of being offensive.

I have only one other name for it that would suit it well, and that name is Elizabethan Chess. Your notion that being offensive would be an advantage for the name is completely puzzling.

American Revolutionary Chess - highlights origin in nation founded in move away from being British, but has disadvantage of no connection with French Revolutionary Chess.

I don't follow that last part. Why would a connection with the French Revolution, with which the game has no connection at all, be an advantage for the name?

Botched Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, reflects at least one British opinion of it, ties in with my coinage 'Botched Bishop' for a Bishop relying on an exclusively non-capturing move for unbinding.

That's just abuse on your part.

Brutish Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, only one letter different for recognition, and the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.

How on earth could that be considered brutish? You are just making no good sense at all.

Hollywood Chess - after the world's most famous faux-Britain factory.

The game has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Supporter Chess - describes the heraldic role common to the three exotic pieces, and the only one in which the Lion is specifically English.

Is supporter a technical term in heraldry? I'm not familiar with the meaning of the word you seem to be using.

Unbritish Chess - accurately describes both the game's origin and its failure to 'pass' as British.

Not quite. By descent, I am part English, Scottish, and Irish. Where I live was once a British colony, and people here still speak the same language as people in Britain do. So I am not unbritish. Besides that, I am a big fan of Dr. Who, Monty Python, British comedy, British rock groups (including U.K.), British operatic singers, and British literature from Shakespeare to Emily Bronte. Culturally speaking, I am much more British than I am French, Dutch, or American Indian -- even though those are also part of my ancestry. Culturally speaking, I am even more British than I am Canadian, and Canada is just a short drive from where I live. So don't tell me I am not British.

There is more to being British than living in Britain or being a citizen of the U.K., and just because you live in Britain and were born there, it doesn't make you an authority on all things British. Your opinion of the game's name is the opinion of one very opinionated man who seems to have an obsession about naming things. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, and you do not speak with any degree of authority. I find your opinions on names, not only for this game, but also for piece names, most unwelcome. I normally just ignore your piece name articles, which I feel have no proper place on this website, but when you continue hounding me like Javert to Jean Valjean, I am going to speak my mind about you.

Firstly, sorry for 'oppinion' (sic). That was a typo on my part.
	Secondly, I have NEVER mentioned the Lion in my comments on this variant,
so your accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice is unfounded abuse, and it
happens to be untrue. Changing their relative powers would not help.
	Thirdly, have you had any positive British response to this variant? It
may be a perfectly playable game, but its theme does not work well enough
to warrant the name British Chess. In every historic real British variant
that I can think of, Bishop means what it means in FIDE Chess. There must
be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and have the
advantage of being offensive. Here are a few that I can think of; other
regular contributors might like to suggest others.
	American Revolutionary Chess - highlights origin in nation founded in
move away from being British, but has disadvantage of no connection with
French Revolutionary Chess.
	Botched Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding,
reflects at least one British opinion of it, ties in with my coinage
'Botched Bishop' for a Bishop relying on an exclusively non-capturing
move for unbinding.
	Brutish Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding,
only one letter different for recognition, and the three heraldic-based
pieces could be considered 'brutish'.
	Hollywood Chess - after the world's most famous faux-Britain factory.
	Supporter Chess - describes the heraldic rôle common to the three exotic
pieces, and the only one in which the Lion is specifically English.
	Unbritish Chess - accurately describes both the game's origin and its
failure to 'pass' as British.

Charles Gilman wrote on the Grotesque Chess page:

Being British myself, I feel more qualified to what is a grave insult to the British, and it is because I found the name British Chess insulting that I suggested giving the variant of that name a different one distancing it ftrom Britain while reflecting a British oppinion of it!

As far as I can tell, your problem with the name stems from your English (not British) pride and your prejudice against Scotland, as your main complaint has been that the Unicorn (which represents Scotland) is more powerful than the Lion (which represents England). This is not a matter of insulting the British, and although you come from Britain, you speak only for your own personal prejudices and not for your whole nation.

'It is also problematic to qualify Catholic for the Pope's followers.
Calling them Roman is inaccurate as there is now complete separation
between the Vatican, a political entity independent of all others, and
Rome, the capital of an Italy with no established religion.'

Nevertheless, we call ourselves Roman Catholics. It is inaccurate to call
England 'England' since its inhabitants are no longer exclusively
Angles. It is inaccurate to call French Fries French since the dish
originated in Belgium. Etc., etc., but none of this matters, because
derivation is one thing and meaning is another. I am a Roman Catholic,
thank you very much, and I would prefer to go on describing my religion by
the term that everyone in Christendom already knows.

Clearly I know that Presbyterians are bishopless, I named them as an
example of such a church in a previuos comment! Far be it from one who
finds your piece named after a real churchman an unnecessary complication
to suggest adding pieces named after fictitious ones! The point of my end
paragraph, which I did label 'incidental', was to clarify between whom
'that fighting' in Northern Ireland had been. Another incidental point
is that facts about the Orthodox church would not help in a Russian-themed
game as Russians call the standard Bishop by their word for an elephant.
	As to what Anglicans are, they are seen as Protestant by most of
themselves and by most members of other churches, and Protestant values
are what the British-Canadian-Australian sovereign vows (yes, vows!) to
uphold as Supreme Governor. It is also problematic to qualify Catholic for
the Pope’s followers. Calling them Roman is inaccurate as there is now
complete separation between the Vatican, a political entity independent of
all others, and Rome, the capital of an Italy with no established
religion.
	Returning to my main point, and accepting your point about the norm and
the exception, I am still left asking about the Bishop+Knight compound.
Cardinal is, if I have counted rightly, the name used in the most games
for that non-colourbound piece. You yourself have devised a game with a
non-colourbound Pope. Surely the higher up the Catholic hierarchy one goes
the more a vow of celibacy is the norm, as exempt priests with their
general age disadvantage die off.
	You have a standard Rook, and you certainly don’t have different kinds of
Knight to represent the orders of the Bath, Garter, Thistle, &c.! So why
not have a standard Bishop and accept that the same piece can represent
the same title in different denominations?

As an Anglican, I am a Catholic in the same sense that Canadians are
Americans.  
'Roman Catholic' is often shortened to 'Catholic'.  Instead of meeting
at Rome, 
the Anglican bishops meet at the 'Lambeth Conference', for which a
variant in Pritchard is named.

Anglicans tend to be very conservative in our private morals, but broadly
tolerant of others who differ from us, with the Golden Rule as guide.  
Particularly, we are noted for respecting individual decisions
about human-made rules and guidelines.  We are often told, 'The only
rule
about thus-and-so is that no one is allowed to make a rule.'

Perhaps the interest that this thread has provoked has something to 
do with the appeal of chess variants.  So long as you are fair to
the other person, you may play chess any way you wish.

'Equating colourbinding with celibacy does not work for me. Quite apart
from celibacy being rare among camels and elephants, after whom other
colourbound pieces are named, but usual among cardinals, after whom a
non-colourbound piece is named, being non-celibate is not a reliable
indicator of Anglican office.'

Celibacy is not the point. The key word is 'vow.' Your point about
animals is irrelevant. Different pieces could be colorbound for different
reasons. In the case of Bishops, it is because, within the context of this
game, they have taken vows to stay colorbound.

'Firstly, not only Anglicans have non-celibate bishops.'

Known and irrelevant. The Bishops are Anglican, because the game is
British Chess.

'The Orthodox clergy, which has a rank of bishop, is open to married
men.'

I'll bear that in mind if I ever invent Russian Chess. It just isn't
relevant to British Chess.

'Secondly, some Anglican clergy are celibate - genuinely celibate, not
merely saving themselves for the right woman.'

Bully for them.

'Thirdly, and this is the bombshell, Catholic priestly celibacy is not
quite universal.'

So what? The norm is still vows of celibacy for Catholic bishops and none
for Anglican bishops. Exceptions to the norm are still exceptions. The
analogy behind the Anglican Bishop piece is based on the norm and needn't
take exceptions into consideration.

'Incidentally Anglicans in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though indeed
counted as Protestants, are a minority on that side of the divide.
Presbyterians outnumber them considerably.'

Two points. First, the Anglican church is the official Church of England,
and the English monarch is the head of this church. Second, Presbyterians
don't have bishops; they just have ministers and elders. For these two
reasons, an Anglican Bishop is more appropriate for British Chess than a
Presbyterian Bishop would be.

Equating colourbinding with celibacy does not work for me. Quite apart from
celibacy being rare among camels and elephants, after whom other
colourbound pieces are named, but usual among cardinals, after whom a
non-colourbound piece is named, being non-celibate is not a reliable
indicator of Anglican office.
	Firstly, not only Anglicans have non-celibate bishops. The Orthodox
clergy, which has a rank of bishop, is open to married men. Indeed
marriage is the norm among its members.
	Secondly, some Anglican clergy are celibate - genuinely celibate, not
merely saving themselves for the right woman. This is particularly so in
the wing closest to Catholics in ritual, whose popular description
Anglo-Catholic may be the source of the 'Who is Catholic?' confusion. A
few are even from Anglican monastic orders. Late last century two brothers
in such an order - and in the literal sense of sharing parents! - became
bishops in England.
	Thirdly, and this is the bombshell, Catholic priestly celibacy is not
quite universal. Converts to Catholicism with clergy experience in another
Christian denomination are eligible for ordination even if they are
married. Theoretically they could reach the rank of bishop, although few
start again young enough.
	Incidentally Anglicans in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though indeed
counted as Protestants, are a minority on that side of the divide.
Presbyterians outnumber them considerably. My original error was a failure
to recall the strong Gaelic streak in North America and Australasia. As to
credentials of impartiality, I am not a Christian of any kind.

Based on what I've found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church
denies what you're telling me about the Anglican Church. In its article
on Apostolic Succession (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm), it 
specifically says, 'That the Anglican Church, in particular, has broken
away from Apostolic unity.' In its article on the Anglican Church 
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm), under the section 
entitled 'Anglican Revival,' it tells of a school of thought within the 
Anglican Church that 'has set up the claim, hopelessly untenable in the 
face of historical evidence, that the Anglican Church is one and 
continuous with the Ancient Catholic Church of the country, and is an 
integral portion of the Catholic Church of today.' So, the Catholic 
Encyclopedia seems to hold the position that Anglicans are not Catholics.

Since I am neither Anglican nor Catholic, I have no stake in the issue.
But I wanted to be clear on the subject. The claim that Anglicans are
Catholics seems to be one maintained mainly by some, but not all,
Anglicans, and it is not, as far as I've ascertained, accepted by Roman
Catholics. So, it does seem to be an internal matter after all.

I'm sorry, I *did* misunderstand, but referring to the Church of England
as catholic is not simply an internal matter.  Because bishops left the
Roman Catholic church to join the Church of England, the unbroken line of
apostolic succession requires the Roman Catholic church to admit the
validity of sacraments performed by Anglican clergy.  This recognition is
by no means automatically extended to Protestant denominations routinely.
Of course, at least one sacrament, baptism, can be performed by anyone,
even you and me.

'Why quote me on what I have already conceded was wrong?'

For the sake of context.

Anyway, I think you're really missing the point regarding the
Catholic/Anglican distinction for the Bishop. Real Catholic Bishops take
vows of celibacy. This is analogous to staying on only one color. Anglican
Bishops may marry and have marital relations. This is analogous to being
able to move on both colors. So, within the context of British Chess,
Catholic Bishops have taken a vow to stay on one color, and Anglican
Bishops have not taken any such vow.

Why quote me on what I have already conceded was wrong? My new line is that
a name such as Bishop 'covers any denomination that has the rank'. If
it's church history you want, here goes. The English bishoprics that were
Catholic when that was England's established church became Anglican with
the establishment, which is why Canterbury had archbishops in the Middle
Ages and now has only Anglican ones. It is the current Catholic
archbishopric of Westminster that is a post-reformation creation. It is
entirely appropriate that a chess piece representing a spokesman for the
old established church goes on to represent a sole immediate successor who
is of the new one. Even bishopless Western denominations can ultimately
trace their roots to Catholicism in its monopolist pre-Reformation days.
The first Ulsterman I ever met was a Presbyterian with a surname meaning
'servant of the (Mediæval, and thereefore Catholic) bishop'!
	Names for the standard Bishop in other countries also fit in with their
preconceptions of the British establishment, from the nepotism-dependent
upper-class twit suggested by Fool to the oppressed indigenous underclass
of imperial days suggested by Elephant.

'the name of your Anglican Bishop is odd because the standard Bishop
would be assumed Anglican in most of the English-speaking world'

Besides the very good point that John Lawson makes, England was still a
Catholic country when the English began calling the diagonal moving piece
a Bishop. The Anglican church dates back only to 1536, when Henry VIII had
England break with Rome. The modern Bishop had been added to Chess about
50 to 60 years earlier.

'Your idea here of applying en passant to the highest piece as well as the
lowest has given me an even more radical idea.'

Is this comment on the right page? I really don't know what you're
talking about. The only difference between Chess and British Chess
regarding en passant is which ranks it can happen on.

'the standard Bishop would be assumed Anglican in most of the
English-speaking world'

I should have commented on this earlier, but in the United States there
are 2.5 million Episcopalians (Anglicans) but almost 60 million Catholics.
 I know better, but most chess-players would be more familiar with
Catholic bishops that Anglican ones.  Most other Protestant denominations
do not have a rank of Bishop at all.

Your idea here of applying en passant to the highest piece as well as the
lowest has given me an even more radical idea. How would Tout En Passant
Chess, a variant on which all pieces can check or capture all enemy pieces
in this manner, play? Presumably it would work best with a simple array of
familiar pieces - the standard one perhaps, or the Bachelor Chess one with
the King extended (see small variants). I would not suggest combining it
with the array shown here!
	This is a good opportunity to tidy up my previous postings here. To sum
up, the name of your Anglican Bishop is odd because the standard Bishop
would be assumed Anglican in most of the English-speaking world, and the
only Catholic-majority language calling the piece a Bishop is Portuguese.
The translation of the Japanese name as Anglemover also suggests
Anglicanism, as the denomination's name derives via England and Anglia
from a tribe called the Angles.

Another correction to my previous comments: apologies to Brazil. Among
countries which call the Chess Bishop a Bishop rather than a Fool,
Flagbearer, Elephant &c. I correctly discounted Portugal (population ca.
9000000) but forgot its former colony!

It is implicit in the rules that the Royal Queen cannot capture a Prince
Consort from a distance. The Royal Quuen cannot move through check, and
would be in check when it reached the adjecent square!  If the Queen is
already adjacent to the Prince Consort, it is already in check and may
capture the Prince Consort if it is undefended.

Another way to make playable a game with a royal Queen would have been to
restrict her movement within a 'Palace' (like the General in Chinese
Chess), for example an area of 4x3 squares (from d3 to g1 for white); and
make the Prince Consort confined to the Palace as well (like the
Mandarins).

The Queen could move exactly as in FIDE Chess and the Prince Consort
exactly as the King.

-------

The idea of 'country-themed' games seems to me highly original. I could
imagine a 'German Chess' with Panzers, U-Boats and Zeppelins (and maybe a
royal Kaiser), or a 'French Chess' with Musketeers, or a 'Spanish Chess'
with Caravels, ...etc.

I looked a little, and the only use of the Stag as a variant chess-piece I could find was in Fantasy Grand Chess' Druid Army, where it's a WH (Wazir + (0,3) leaper).

In general, quadruped-named pieces seem to be leapers or lame versions of leapers: Horse, Camel, Antelope, Gnu, etc. One sort of piece that British Chess doesn't have is a non-rider leaper, and that might be a nice addition to the mix. Perhaps the (as far as I know unnamed) combination of Knight and Zebra which occasionally shows up on large board variants? It's color-changing, which means that one is not enough for mate with the usual King, but powerful enough to be useful.

While I might still try a four-color board, I have two reasons against
using one. First, I already tried a four-color board when I created
Cavalier Chess, and it was confusing to look at. Second, I wanted to use
the colors of the British flag for the board, and it has three colors.

I may still try a four-color board, because I've come up with the idea
that the Dragons are elemental creatures who each move through one
element. I could justify green as a fourth color, representing Northern
Ireland and the element earth. Red would be fire, white air, and blue
water.

I think two Dragons per side are enough. I have deduced that a Queen with
any two minor pieces can checkmate a lone Queen, and this includes two
Dragons.

It'd probably be too powerful, but it might have been amusing to have made the Dragon a Nightrider too, making it a Rocket-rider or Squirrel-rider. With the current definition I would think it would be rather weak in the endgame.