tedbarber: I've played both games, Gothic Chess and Embassy Chess, and I'm here to tell you that the Queens start the game on the same squares in both games! Also the Bishops are on the same squares, and the only other diagonal moving piece, the Cardinal (Archbishop in Gothic) is also on the same square. The only change in the game beside the minor thing of the naming of the pieces is the Kings and Marshalls are on different squares. I'll grant you the switching these two pieces might make a big difference in some of the openings, but the play will all be the same later in the game. Least ways in a way that us humans can tell apart. And by the way, neither of them move diagonal. What do you mean by the long diagonal? Are you sure you're playing Embassy Chess and not confusing it with some other game?

This game seems like a real good game to me and is as playable as Gothic Chess is my opinion, plus it doesn't suffer from all the of baggage and feuding of Gothic Chess. All the Pawns are guarded in the intitial set up. If anything, it looks more traditional having the King and Queen side by side. The pieces are arranged in Grand Chess' order and that game predates Gothic by about 30 years.

There's three major pieces. The board has an even number of squares along the back row, just how can you place them to have balance when comparing one half of the board to the other half? Doesn't sound possible to me. Gothic Chess is no more balanced than Embassy Chess or Bird's or Capablanca.