Comments by benr

I've just tested on my own account, and the email was received, though sorted into the spam folder.  Have you double-checked your spam folder?  (My target account is administrated by google, though it's not a `gmail.com` address; I know we've had problems with gmail addresses in the past.)

@Amy, I've reduced the repetition of material in each section, and some other light editing.  Please check that it reads alright to you.

Does the RF-checkmate mean any checkmate in which the RF takes some part, or must the RF be delivering check?  What about when the RF "contributes" but is redundant (other pieces cover its attack squares)?  (Maybe these questions don't actually matter, given the RF's restrictions; I haven't thought about any specific position yet.)

You say the RF prioritizes "safe" squares, but from the subsequent discussion it sounds like perhaps you meant "empty"?

Odd, I can't log in from this login page either, but I can log in through the menu on other pages.  Trying to log in from this page (/login/login.php) takes me to /login/cvplogin.php which hangs.

I don't receive a cookies message on this page, but I can confirm the same adblocker message behavior.

gmail addresses have had problems receiving emails from us, but that shouldn't affect your login, especially not abruptly like this.

I've just realized I don't actually know when the red fool moves from the text.  I'd assume it doesn't have its own turn, but instead acts as a piece that one of the players can move during their turn?  Must it be moved if it is attacked, and (especially if so) does the player get to move the RF in addition to or just instead of one of their own pieces?  Does "attacked" depend on whose turn it is (i.e., if the RF is attacked only by a black piece, can black move the RF)?

I still don't completely understand "safe"/"either empty or undefended": is there a priority among the three options (an empty and unthreatened square, an empty but threatened square, and an occupied but unthreatened square)?  I guess here "threatened" doesn't depend on piece colors?

@KelvinFox, for a Piececlopedia article (and useful advice even for ordinary Piece articles), see
https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/guidelines.html

You can use the Post Your Own Game scripts, using only the Introduction field, to have a more flexible header system.  (When the fields other than Introduction are empty, the headers are suppressed, and you can include your own.)  You can't select Piece or Piececlopedia, but we (the editors) can change that after.  (But if you want to put it in the Piececlopedia, you'll need to ask Fergus whether he'd prefer/insist on a static html file instead of script submission.)

Happy 25th anniversary, Chess Variant Pages!

Thanks for following up.  I checked with Firefox (v66), removing cookies and then logging in, and didn't have a problem.  The cookie whose presence determines that message (I think) is cvpuser, which ought to get populated when you first try to log in.  Is that one of the five that got stored for you?

...and the overzealous use of caching seems to be the browser, not our site.  I don't know what changed, or if there's an easy thing for us to do to override that browser behavior.  (On some pages we've been appending dummy unique ids as part of the query in URLs, which fixes the caching but is not ideal.)

In the intervening time, we've had submissions from strong community members who do not have their real names displayed on these pages.  I (and I think we?) still have a slight preference for real names, for the encyclopedic nature of the site, but there are many sites now where site-famous people are later referred to as "user xyz of site abc," so maybe it's fine.

Another thing that changed in the time since your submission: the Diagram Designer.  The use of a period to denote a dot on the board (for movement diagrams) has been deprecated; you can replace them with a pound symbol (#), or a few other options.

I've made a few grammatical and layout edits, and Reviewed the page.  For now it is a Piece article, pending Fergus's review for the Piececlopedia.  I listed Betza as the inventor.

When I click the button, it also displays the old graphics and the message that rules are not enforced; however, when I enter the URL directly or click on Move, it brings up the new rules-enforcing settings.  Another weird cache effect?

@fergus, this page is just a copy of https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/chess-on-an-infinite-plane with different graphics.  (Although now I see that that page has some issues with characters as well.)

The most obvious difference with Cheshire Cat Chess is when n>1.  But also the elimination of draw rules makes it interesting, IMO.  An insufficient material endgame, for example, becomes a puzzle similar to Joust Chess.

I've added a tag square-removal to track similar games.

I agree that this is really very far out on the chess variant spectrum.  I don't think I'd say it's more a poker variant than a chess variant though.  I tend to err on the side of inclusiveness; Greg?

Actually, I think it would be a better game with more poker elements; a matching pair/triple, or flush/straight (but only three cards) should confer some bonus in the chess phase?

And, if the game is to stay, the page needs a fair bit of formatting work.

Welcome, Zied and Ola!

The page is no longer empty, but the images are external, and do not work.  (The links do work, interestingly.)

I see you've also included some attempts at local image inclusion, but they point to nonexistant files here.  I've edited the first one to point to the location I would expect your images to be hosted (@Fergus, is this documented somewhere for users?), but I don't find any files there either; have you uploaded any images yet (there's a link near the bottom of the page when you are logged in)?

I did not understand it from the text on this page, but reading the linked description of Bushi Shogi, I think I now understand it.  I don't think the cannons actually play any role, except to denote the two sides.  A sample game on this page would be helpful.

It would be very hard to call this a chess variant, or even a shogi variant, IMO.

I've added the checkmating potential note to this page.

I wanted to call out that the "vocabulary" section here seems to disagree with our current definition of adjacent in the glossary, when referring to hexagonal variants.  I think such sections in the Piececlopedia should generally be replaced to a link to the glossary, but we should consider whether we like the glossary definition of "adjacent" for hexagonal boards.