Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think the archbishop(s) is better on the side. That eases it's development.

Hmm, this is not obvious at all. Archbishops are very mobile and develop easily anywhere and in this respect the center of the back rank is not less favourable than the sides. I even think they can develop easier from g1 because the center Pawns are often moved first, freeing their squares, than from b1, k1 where they are trapped.

I think Aurelian may have meant he would prefer if the Archbishops were each one square in front of all the Chancellors. However, if they developed two squares forward like a Kt, they might be vulnerable to an undeveloped enemy Vao.

Having the Archbishops in the centre on the 1st rank would seem to be a possible improvement on the setup too, but I think Fergus may have definitely wanted the Cannons of an army to have empty squares to move to (on the 1st rank) at once, if a player desired, sort of like in (10x10) Shako.

Jean-Louis understood what I wanted to say, well. Thanks for the interest Kevin!

Thanks Kevin and Aurelian. I understand. Placing the Vaos needs care indeed, I met this also in my variants. I concluded that it is best to put them in the center of the 1st rank as much as possible, at least not on the sides, to avoid that they threat the opponent's lines too early, as soon as the center Pawns are developed.

In the case of a single BN and single RN, then maybe the full 1st rank would have to be considered in order to give the Cannons a max of lateral mobility and a avoid a premature threat from the Vaos. Interesting.

There is also the issue as having all pawns protected in the initial position. Don't forget about it. Although with so many pieces this is relatively easy to do!

An experiment might be to switch all the Kts with the Champions AND switch all the Wizards with the Archbishops, in the setup - play testing could proceed from there, if anyone thinks this may be a good idea to try.

The reasoning is that not only may the Archbishops get into play easier sooner, but the development of the Kts and Wizards will not take away nice squares from each other (nor the Champions from the Wizards). A drawback is that the Kts are farther from the centre, but in Fergus' setup that tries to please Kt fans it's the Champions that have to suffer that instead (and squares they want to develop to are ones both the Wizards AND Kts may want to, too). However, another drawback would be Wizrds have less nice squares to develop to. [edit: yet another drawback would be that a Wizard could no longer develop to attack an enemy centre pawn that was moved by a triple step]

My initial question was about having 2 BN and 2 RN. I was thinking in a setup with only 1 of each.

An experiment might be to switch all the Kts with the Champions AND switch all the Wizards with the Archbishops, in the setup - play testing could proceed from there, if anyone thinks this may be a good idea to try.

One of the deliberate features of the setup is that every piece except the Vaos has an empty space it can move to behind the Pawn line. If you made these changes to the setup, the Knights, Champions, and Archbishops would no longer have any empty spaces they could move to behind the Pawn line.

I have noticed that several games of Gross Chess end up with some Marshalls and/or Archbishops unmoved. Maybe the presence of two Marshalls and two Archbishops is somewhat excessive.

Even if a piece doesn't move, it influences the moves of other pieces by protecting or threatening other spaces on the board. So, not moving these pieces isn't evidence that they are playing no role in the game. This may rather be a sign that because of differences in playing ability, one player is having an easy time defeating another player. In the endgames I can recall from Gross Chess, both players got down to very little material and had to employ whatever pieces they had left.

I wonder if a variant with a single Marshall on g1 and Archbishop on f1 with empty a1, b1, k1, l1 would be worth to be investigated.

One problem with this is that it destroys the symmetry of the setup. Another problem is that it leaves the King, Queen, Bishops and Cannons without any empty spaces to move to behind the Pawn line, and a game with this setup may as well be played on a 10x10 board, since it doesn't make effective use of the greater space provided on a 12x12 board.

What might a concrete advantage of every piece (except Vaos) being able to move behind the pawn line in the setup be? [edit: closest thing to that I can think of, so far, is that a player sometimes just might be able to evade an attack/skewer by an enemy Vao or Cannon, in a way he couldn't otherwise]

What might a concrete advantage of every piece (except Vaos) being able to move behind the pawn line in the setup be? [edit: closest thing to that I can think of, so far, is that a player sometimes just might be able to evade an attack/skewer by an enemy Vao or Cannon, in a way he couldn't otherwise]

Along the lines you imagined, it makes valuable pieces less prone to capture by pieces that can hop or leap over the Pawn lines. Since the Vao is the least valuable piece, it is the piece least in need of having an escape route. Notably, Chinese Chess, which introduced the Cannon, leaves more space around the pieces than Chess does.

I understand your points. If there was 1 BN on b1/b12 and 1 RN on k1/k12 only, all your specs would be respected: all pieces can move behind the lines, all pawns are protected, the Cannons keep their mobility. Just there is no symmetry for BN and RN, but there is no symmetry for Queen either and this is not illogical. I have understood that the reason why you had 2 BNs,2 RNs is because you owned 2 physical Gothic chess sets. An option to play with a single BN/RN set would be worth to consider maybe. Just wondering.

I understand your points. If there was 1 BN on b1/b12 and 1 RN on k1/k12 only, all your specs would be respected: all pieces can move behind the lines, all pawns are protected, the Cannons keep their mobility.

This setup leaves an empty space on a1 without any piece able to move to it, which adds an element of arbitrariness to the setup that I don't like. It also reduces the usefulness of the Cannon and Vao by giving them fewer valuable pieces to potentially pick off, and it removes the chance of a Vao threatening to eventually capture a Rook or Marshall along a diagonal.

Just there is no symmetry for BN and RN, but there is no symmetry for Queen either and this is not illogical.

It increases the asymmetry in the game, which I prefer to avoid.

I have understood that the reason why you had 2 BNs,2 RNs is because you owned 2 physical Gothic chess sets. An option to play with a single BN/RN set would be worth to consider maybe.

If we did that, it might work better to put the Archbishop by the King and to put the Queen and Marshall in the corners. Since the Queen is more powerful, it could go on the Kingside corner. This would take care of some of the objections I had. However, I would otherwise prefer to keep the Queen by the King, which is the more traditional position for this piece, and having two Marshalls and Archbishops better accommodates this.

@Jean-Louis

You can always make a preset with "Gross Chess - Cazaux variation" though. I'll try it with you! I'm quite sure Fergus won't be bothered!

Thanks Aurelian, but I won't. I was just wondering if Gross chess could be good with less material because I would have made it like this if I had been the inventor. But, I'm not and it is normal that we have different views, tastes, etc. Moreover, I'm a terrible player so my opinion is not a reference. Thanks for all replies. It's nice to have a place like this to discuss. In any case, Gross Chess is OK as is, and one of the most popular on this place.

Fergus, you might want to update your hyperlinks, especially the link to the GC preset page for this game. Right now, it is not working because the page was moved.

Is it just subject threads or also comments I can't post?