Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Fair enough, if you're happy with it. It's just that to me the name
suggests only the Shatranj aspect of the variant. In fact it's only
because it was updated that I noticed it at all.
	I certainly won't use Shatranjgi for any variant of my own, as none
could match this one for suitability. There is a gap for a variant
applying my Bishogi rules to Shatranj (back-rank pieces promoted by
ADDING
the Ferz move and all returning unpromoted) but I will call that Filgi.
	The accidental suggestion of Chaturaji has given me an idea of a variant
with 4 reduced Shogi armies on a single Shogi board. This has made me
curious to know the Japanese for 'four kings', as that would be an
ideal
name for it.

As to Mr. Gilman's question, doesn't a popular 4-player shogi variant with a reduced array of pieces on a standard shogi board (Yonin Shogi) already exist?

A house-rules version of 4-handed chaturanga and Chess of the Four Seasons that I know replaces the move of the ship/alfil with the move of the shogi elephant, a move that al-Beruni described as the movement of the piece in 10th-century chaturanga. Both games play much better that way.

Ed is right in pointing out Yonin Shogi, which I myself rated excellent,
but that doesn't exclude other such variants. Yonin Shogi has only
selected piece types, with the pieces arranged:
..*****..
...***...
*...*...*
**.....**
***...***
**.....**
*...*...*
...***...
..*****..
I am thinking of one with all eight piece types, with the pieces
arranged:
*****.*.*
.*.*..***
*****.*.*
......***
*.*...*.*
***......
*.*.*****
***..*.*.
*.*.*****

The idea behind the game may be a good one, but I now think the game is flawed. It does address the problem with Chessgi of the pieces being a bit too powerful for a drop game, but it has problems of its own. The main problem is that the King is now surrounded by pieces that can't defend it well against attacks from dropped pieces. In a game I just played, I checked the King with a dropped Pawn, and even though the King, the General, and the Elephants were all in their original position, only the King could have potentially captured the Pawn. The General and Elephants were worse than useless, for besides being unable to do anything, they impeded the King's escape. My Pawn was protected, the King had to flee, and it was checkmate on the next move in a very short game. I now understand why Shogi replaces the General and Elephants with Gold and Silver Generals. These pieces are much more useful for defending the King from dropped pieces. Chessgi could be improved by using weaker pieces, but I no longer think that using Shatranj pieces is the way to go. Shogi pieces are better, but if that is the direction Chessgi must go to get better then I may as well stick with Shogi and not bother trying to fix Chessgi. Perhaps Halfgi, which has already been done, is a better way to go.

Shatranj is a cool variant mainly for its historic value, IMO. It's awkward, weak ferz and (especially) alfil (or elephant) pieces make it somewhat frustrating to play for many a modern player, again IMO. The present variant, Shatranji, removes some of this frustration, as dropping either of these weak pieces after they are captured allows the (now not necessarily permanent) binding of them to become less of an issue. However I find the elephant piece still awkward to use, while it is still on the board, in Shatranji, owing to its double binding. I'm wondering if a 'Modern Shatranji' version of Joe Joyce's Modern Shatranj variant (i.e. crossing it with Chessgi-like drops), with Joe's use of guards and modern elephants, rather than ferz' and alfils, might prove at least as good in practice as Shatranji.

[edit: Here's my tentative estimates of the piece values for this variant: E=2.06; P=2; F=2.25; N=3.5; R=4.]

I did not try this game, but I know that in Shogi it is hardly a problem that a piece is weak or able to access only a small part of the board (without being dropped). Compare the Shogi Knight, with only two move targets and a very small 'scope', whch certainly is inferior to the Shatranj Elephant. Nevertheless it is a valued piece, and there even is a proverb to the extent of "with three Knights in hand there must be a checkmate". Being able to give an unblockable check from a distace is apparently quite valuable in Shogi.

So I would expect this to be a good game, probably even better than Crazyhouse. Not as good as Shogi, though, because I think having the pieces promote (modestly) is a real asset.

I'm only playing my second game of Shatranji, but I thought the elephants in the setup perhaps caused a bit of a problem for initial development, which even unmoved knights don't in shogi (for themselves and for lances there, as opposed to for the elephants and rooks in this game). I may have a hangup about not wanting to move my elephants initially to a rook's file in this game though, which may be an acceptable solution at times. Also, it's harder to pick off an undeveloped elephant than an undeveloped shogi knight, in order to drop it somewhere with more flexibility for it, I'd imagine. Elephants also cannot promote in this game, unlike for shogi knights, as H.G. alluded to. In Shatranji (or straight Shatranj) only pawns can promote, and then to a lowly ferz rather than the gold-powers one acquires at promotion in shogi. That's an additional reason I'm thinking the idea of a 'Modern Shatranji' variant, based on Joe Joyce's Modern Shatranj (with pawns promoting to generals [aka guards]) might be even more interesting than Shatranji.