Thanks, Felix, for interjecting some humor. I've apologized privately to Ed for the tone of my message since I think I crossed the line of friendly discussion. We are very fortunate that he takes the time to frequent this discussion board (and that he asked Fencer to implement Gothic Chess on this site). It is my hope that anytime I challenge anyone's statements on this board that they understand it is because I find the issue interesting and would like to generate further discussion in an attempt to reach a clearer understanding.

I freely admit that I misinterpreted Ed's statements; however, in my defense, the term "the square" in King and Pawn endings refers to "the square of the Pawn" and is always used in the context of a passed Pawn as a device to check whether the opposing King can catch it in time. Of course, if one wishes to generalize the term's meaning to include King position, there is nothing wrong with that; but it's not the generally accepted meaning (that is, until the majority is enlightened :-) ). Ed has indicated that his playing experience seems to show that misunderstanding of the subleties of chess on a 10x8 board is widespread (or, something like that, I think), so that games are lost more quickly on a 10x8 board (even after the Gothic pieces are exchanged) than most people expected. That's an interesting observation. However, it should be pointed out that King position and opposite-colored Bishop endings are often mis-evaluated in regular chess as well. That is, after a flurry of exchanges in regular chess, one could easily find oneself in a lost King and Pawn endgame because of inferior King position; and, opposite-color Bishop endings are not necessarily draws in regular chess either, particularly when there are Pawns on both sides of the board. Perhaps these considerations are magnified on a 10x8 board. It would certainly be interesting to test these theories.