mahavrilla: Janus Chess has one very good thing going for it. Ed Trice didn't patent it! The games themselves are very similar. I started playing Gothic Chess first, and probably would not even have played Janus Chess had it not been for the events that led to me becoming moderator of the Gothic Chess discussion board or things that Ed Trice did after my installment as moderator of said board. Since then, I've learned to play Janus Chess, and for some reason the game is lots harder for me to play well as compared to Gothic Chess. I'm not sure why this is. Ed is very good at both games, ... mod edit ....

As far as having an answer to your post. The obvious major difference is having two Januses compared to a Janus/Archbishop and a Knight+Rook/Chancellor. The two Januses can work together in ways that can only happen because there's two of them. Kind of like the Rooks in regular Chess. The Bishops in regular Chess can be powerful, but they can never guard each other. The Knights can guard each other, but as soon as one moves that is no longer true. The Januses do both things, as do the Rooks. Gothic Chess's Archbishop and Chancellor do it on occasion, so it's hard for me to say for sure. It just seems like the Januses move together better. On paper the Gothic set is stronger, but that doesn't mean it's a better version, does it? As for excitement while playing the games themselves, that's a very subjective thing and I think the games are equal in that respect. You didn't ask about unpredictability. Is that part of the excitement factor for you?