Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

As to the Duke name, the piece in Ed Friedlander's Exotic Chess (the Make-your-own game) which has the guard-and-knight move is the Duke, which is why I selected that name. The name of the piece in Renniassance Chess (where the Duke piece comes from that's in the Piececlopedia) which corresponds to the knight-and-guard move is the Page. With pawns also starting with p, you can see why I used the Duke name for the piece. Also, and it's a matter of taste, I don't like the name Centaur--there are too many C-names for 'better' pieces already established.

Interesting point on the knights--but perhaps they can do flank duties from there? It's never been a disadvantage for me. Taking two moves to get centralized allows a more flexible deployment--and since it's not a slam-bang variant, players should be able to find the time to develop them 'properly.'

As far as the g-pawn goes (the pawn on the third rank), there we may just have a difference of style. I wanted it there for the extra protection around the king it affords. Plus, remember, this variant is based on Courier Chess among others, where a pawn is advanced even farther (actually, the rooks' pawns are also advanced to the fourth rank in Courier). I left it on the third rank to give players more choices as to deployment, as well as the king safety factor.

Thus far Eric Greenwood. I had not known of the precedent that he was following in naming the Man+horse, and all of his choices are, of course, perfectly valid. In my favorite variant, Courier Spiel, I found myself using the sage (centaur) to contest the center (with the fool backing it) while the knights do indeed do flank duty. I think this invention looks quite promising.

I have taken another look at this, and still like the prospect.  I suppose the king-pawn cannot take a double first step.

Very nice application, I have enjoyed to play.

It is an appealling modernization of Courier chess but to my taste, the board is somehow too small for so many strong pieces.

Well, it doesn't seem worse than Capablanca Chess and similar 10x8 variants. There you have 3 Queen-class pieces, here only 2. Here there are 2 pieces in between Rook and Queen, though (Squirrel and Crowned Rook). But the board here is 12 wide instead of 10. A agree that it is a bit short on weaker pieces, with only an extra Guard. But very many variants suffer from that; here at least there is an extra light piece.

Hmm, I count 4 pieces in between Q and R here: RF, BW, KN, Sq. So 6 pieces at >5, what is left is the Bs, a Man which is equal to the B and thus not so light, and finally the weakest is the N. I believe it is much heavier than Capablanca's. That's perfect if you like bloody battles.

Well, BW is about equal to Rook. On 8x8 at least. But you are right, quick naive counting with Q = RN = 9, BN = 8, KN = RF = NAD = 7, R = BW = 5, B = N = FW = 3 gives totals of 31 for FIDE, 48 for Capablanca and 60 for this. So it has 33% more power on a 20% larger board as Capablanca. Divided by the board width we get 3.875, 4.8 and 5. I guess part of that is due to the fact that it has an extra piece. But Seirawan Chess with 48 on 8x8 is much worse (6). And I did not even bother to calculate it for variants like Sac Chess.