Comments by benr

It might make things more compact if the movement diagrams were on smaller boards. I'd also suggest sorting them in the same groups you introduced pieces in. (Alphabetical isn't as helpful: anyone searching for a piece can search its name in the page.)

Your hawk is the gnu, and your xiphodon is the manticore.

As in your other page, different colors for the movement indicators would be better. Using dots instead of coloring the entire square would be nicer, and can be done with an ! or # in the diagram designer (which would need to be url-encoded, so don't just edit the URLs).

Those look much nicer, thanks!

With multiple-royal games being so rare, a few more words about your game-end condition would be nice. In particular, it isn't really necessary to "checkmate" either of the pieces, as forking them is sufficient (if I've understood the reddit post of the game correctly).

In the equipment section, what was the purpose of the chess set? You'd need more pawns, and so I'd expect you'd rather just use the checkers pieces...?

The pawn "temporary promotions" are interesting. The penultimate row seems to suffer the most from having the dodecahedron's forwardmost moves cut off by the board. I imagine analyzing pawn moves becomes more difficult when each move also changes its abilities. I think it would be worth emphasizing that the additional powers are only for capture (right?).

Do you have any analysis of mating material?

The table layout for piece descriptions wasn't great on my mobile browser, so I've changed that. It's still not great, as the description text block will keep a few short words on the right and then break everything else to below the image, but I've run out of time to work on it right now.

The CECV doesn't specify castling rules on the larger board. I would assume it's the same as ordinary queenside, but can anyone check the what the Zillions implementation has done? I'll also check Ed's java implementation when I have the chance to use a java-applet-supporting browser.

(a reminder to myself to add the Promotion-Zone tag after this is published)

The tag description has been overwritten; not sure if there's a crossed wire in the scripts, or if it was a user error.

Also, when entering a (this) comment on a tag, the link back to the page following "Comment on the page" is malformed.

Is there any appetite for supporting markdown for member submitted pages? (I've caught myself trying to enter markdown already...)

I expect this was from the same script glitch or user error as the parent tag. This comment is to flag the issue in either case. (Does anyone get alerted to comments on tag pages?)

Do we have histories on tag descriptions to restore? (That's not so important here, since I can't imagine we had a particularly interesting description before, but for future reference?)

It looks like the Game Courier play-counts, but I'm not sure how it got there.

I build such a table in the ad hoc reporting page, but I don't write it back to the database. I could have created it at some point in developing the script? (The script's last change was in Dec 2018.)

Here's a diagram with a playable AI (my first, so let's see how this goes):

(So far this looks right. Having the defaults correctly detected for the common pieces means all that needed to be checked here is promotion and castling; really nice H.G.! But specifying promotion choices seemed finicky; without explicitly giving the knight's label it wasn't recognized, and depending on the order of the promotion choices I lost other choices as well.)

I've updated the link description and published this page.

I found the "en passant...is identical to the regular chess Pawn" for the Maasai a little disconcerting because it doesn't address inter-type interaction. Of course, you address that in the Rules section. Maybe just add a note to the piece description that these are addressed in the Rules section?

I used the Play-Test Applet, followed by some editing of the html. Specifically, since the queen doesn't appear in the initial setup, I needed to add it to the promotion choices, which subsequently required adding it to the piece list (hence its appearance last, which I didn't remember indicating royalty).

The Play-Test Applet also produced a more-verbose version of the piece descriptions than necessary, so I pruned those down based on viewing another of your posted diagrams. But then the issue with the knight came up, and it seemed that it needed the explicit id.

It seemed (though I went through many iterations, so perhaps there was some other issue) that the order I listed the promotion choices in mattered for which ones became available.

I've updated my previous comment to fix the royalty, and I cannot recreate the issue with promotion list order.

The tag description page-scripts aren't working.

The playable diagram (but not the statistics) seems to be allowing the defending king two moves each turn now. Chromev0.92 on Windows.

I don't see a problem updating the page to give the correct probabilities, in percentages if you would prefer. If for some reason you really prefer "1/3", then please add "approximately" (and these comments can serve any curious visitor). I find the "1/3+1/36" part for capturing extremely confusing, because it suggests I am more likely rather than less to roll doubles?

I find the mathematical notation being used as bullet points distracting. I would also suggest moving the ≅ point being moved into a later section as an alternative rule.

I also find the many capitalizations, italicizations, and underlinings distracting; if you could try to minimize those a little I think you would more effectively emphasize fewer points.

Could you make the same fix for the EGT.html page (as linked from the piececlopedia articles)?

The red is because the text is now wrapped in an <a> tag, and hovering over that changes the text color.

Published.

I changed the link Description (which appears in searches and next to the title in the comments, etc.) to be more descriptive, but let me know if you'd like it changed.

@Adam, we normally don't like to rename Items that have been around for a while (your rules page being from 2019); while we can automatically update comments, favorites, index entries, tags, and possibly groups (am I missing anything?), anybody else who has linked to your page would find their link broken.

I'm open to feedback on how best to manage this sort of thing. One possibility is to create a new Item with the new name, we can move over the references in the database I've mentioned, and leave the old page with just a link forwarding to the new page (possibly even an automatic redirect, though I'm not sure if that'd work in a member submission view script).

I did occasionally use the "info" page, previously linked to from the icon of an index entry. But I do not consider this worth keeping either. Those pages can still be reached from the "info" link in the footer of the item's actual page (except perhaps for multi-item pages?).