Pioneer54:
If I understand correctly, a "pure" Cannon will act like a Rook with a limited range?

The Chinese Cannon implying an intervening obstacle is just what make it so rich of possibilities and so different from all other pieces. Isn'it?

You suggest a 12x10 with 12 rows and 10 columns, have I grasp what you wrote? If correct, I don't see the point for the melioration. I thought more for a 10 rows and 12 columns, in order to expand the positionning at the start.
I refrein to propose a 12x12 board, fearing to be consider as a megalomaniac :-). But is that really foolish?

I totaly agree with you, the best would be to experiment and so doing improving more surely.

I wonder if Fencer read this discussion board. Perhaps he could envisage to program your nice idea of a "Idea editor". How a rich source for new ideas it will feed!

Abigaill:
I remember many years ago I bought "Zillion of games". It is sleeping somewhere in the house, I will try to retrieve it. Thank you, because I didn't remember we could create some board games.

Pioneer54:
I think the reason for Chinese Chess is confined into China is because it is a very open game (only 5 pawns) resulting in a almost 100% tactical game. I have to be very humble with this opinion because I have a short practise of that game.

I admit, as I replied to Abigaill, you are right, the promotion could became too late for an efficient use.

I maintain, up to now, my point of view: adding Cannons and a second Cardinal could boost the interest for a variant of Grand Chess.

I like your possible approval for a 12x10 board. That may be the solution.

Well the seed is spreaded, will it growth?

I thank you for this very interesting discussion.

AbigailII:
The sentence you put in exergue whas for explaining my intention. But if you read the the next sentence, you could admit I bow down to Pioneer54's replay :-) .

Indeed the slow moving pieces in Shogi is extraordinarily improved by the possibility to drop pieces. That make this game so ferocious.

Pioneer54:
Thank you very much, for submitting your thought. I was afraid my suggestions tumbled in an oubliette :-) .

I agree with you concerning almost all of your points of view, notably about chess.


about cannon "the obtuse nature in comparison to real battlefield situations", chess is not exempt, if we consider the Pawn for example he moves straight on but capture only in diagonal!
I am more inclined to think the reason of his lack of popularity is mainly due to his like to say confidential existence. I would not be amazed, when more spreaded in the public, it will generate many enthusiasts aficionados.

Janus is very funny game and the King on the back row authorize to Castle.

My desire to deviate from pieces based on Knight movement is not that I am on principle reluctant but more wishful to explore new territories on a large board (I would like a board of 12x10 for example). Would not be a pity to discard some interesting pieces for the sole reason they are unknown?

Your first point. GrandChess is 10 squared board but don't lose from sight it is only one more than Shogi (9x9). I imagine such promotion could tears the opponent front. But, in relation with you fith point, I feel far less sure. I dare even to say: you are right.

The second point. Would we be afraid to contradict some Grand Chess rules, knowing we are nvestigating a variant?

On your third point, you are absolute right about the capture of a promoted pawn. I should not have precise that superfluous rule.

Ultimately, you may be right. Who know? I thought it may be alike revolutionary game with only adding ome classical pieces.

I am grateful for your open minded and construstive approach. Perhaps some will join their point of view as constructively as yours.

Well, adding the tricky two Chinese Cannons, adding a second Cardinal
and a new promotion rule are for sure not proofs. Who could proof
without experimenting? But, in my humble opinion, serious argument to
augment the complexity of the game through the use of dynamical pieces.

I didn't tried to proof. I launched some ideas as suggestions.

Pioneer54:
Thank you for intervening.
I feel less tempted by the Amazon piece (again a combination with the Knight movement).

My aim is  to improve Grand Chess with pieces or rules from old classical games. They are for sure steady value, having been tested since many centuries.
The trap to avoid is to overload the game with too many pieces like in some variation of Shogi (Japanese Chess).

A possible starting position may be:
PP  P  P P  P  P   P  P  P
  N  B C Q C  M  B  N
R       A K A                R

A(rtillery) are Chinese Cannons. Note I preserve the Marshall for those having a different appreciation about .
Also worth to note is the possibility to renew with Castle rule, eventually.
Don't forget the promotion of a Pawn to a Japanese Chess Gold.

Well that is a summarize of my suggestions. I will be glad to read your reactions, including from Fencer of course.

If you think that could be of some value, a possible name for the game could be "Asian Grand Chess" ?

Cheers for now, P-G.

Walter Montego:
About Pawn promotion, I have another suggestion than yours:
A Pawn is promoted to a Gold General (piece borrowed from Shogi, the Japanese Chess).
When captured it returns to a Pawn.
No doubt, this will boost the game, due to this terrible threat.

I have not yet an opinion if a promotion could be better since the 5th row in place of the 8th.

Walter Montego:
The Marshall is a powerful piece, I agree.
We also agree that its use occurs later in the game.
If we compare the dynamism of the two Janus with the Marshall and Cardinal, we can accept that the start of a Janus game is much more fun.

As regards the Chinese Cannons (by the way have you already had time to read the rules of Chinese Chess?).

My intention is not to accumulate powerful pieces like with Rooks but to add two very interesting and exciting pieces full of new combinations possibilities.

I see no reason why Chinese Cannons are not yet used outside the Chinese Chess. Probably simply because it is unknown is a reasonable explanation.

Actually, all occidental pieces are formed from an association of Bishop, Rook and Knight movements. Why not extend that with a so tricky piece?
I am certain it will give a new breath to our play.

I ignore the Ultima game. Where, please, can I read something about?

Walter Montego:
Thank you, I have to digest your rich and long answer. I will do it tomorrow, because it is a bit late now.

About the chinese cannons, you will find how interesting they are in the rules of chinese chess under "New game".

In the Grand Chess, I think it will be exciting to add those two tricky chinese cannons.
Perhaps at the first and last rows?

Perhaps we could cancel the "Rook+Knight"? I allways perceive it like a clumsy piece. It could be avantageously replaced by a second "Bishop+Knight", like in Janus game. The dynamism will be improved. Well, it is only (for the moment) my opinion