Comments by Michael Taktikos

The rules you mentioned are correct, turnover applies both to own and to enemy pieces.

But the illegal move Ke8xd8 doesn't look like a turnover (in this case, that would be a combinination King + Queen to a completely new piece), but looks like a castling King - Queen.

Moreover, the King has already all 3 rings, so all ring-combinations including that of the Queen are already integrated in him. So he can be separated into two different pieces, but there is no piece to combine with him for a turnover - such a turnover would result in a piece not existing in chess

Hm, before the 3 points you cited, there was another one in the rules, let's call it point 0:

Castle:

Its Wall can move or turnover one or two squares forward.

According to point 0, its wall can turnover one or two squares FORWARD, not sideways, and that makes sense, since the wall represents a pawn. I agree that point 3 you referred is expressed somehow unclear, leaving the impression that its wall can turnover in every direction including sideways, but that would contradict point 0.

An easy way to test the ID engine about legal moves and strength is to make a test game vs

https://dagazproject.github.io/checkmate/turnover.htm

(after setting the same startposition in the ID engine as in this site)

It is clear that the linked description is grossly inadequate...

Yes, the description should be more precise, in the present form it lets much space for interpretations

Note that the applet you refer to does allow friendly turnover for diagonally forward moves (but not to sideway moves). If I play b2-b3 (leaving a Citadel on b2), the next move I can play a1-b2 to turnover that Citadel. After c1-c2, c1-b1, c1-b1 it does not allow a1-cb1, though. So the applet doesn't treat all the castling squares the same way, which casts a lot of doubt on its correctness.

So does my Zillions implementation. If the rules are incorrect interpreted by the russian author of the applet, then in a mysterious way I made the same misinterpretations, so that it happens that my zrf and the applet are implementations of the same game and can play a match against each other.

If you are still in touch with the game inventor, it would be good to know his statement, if this game, independently implemented in the applet and in my zrf, is the same game he had in mind.

So how do you explain a diagonally forward move of a Castle can turnover, but neither move the entire Castle nor the Wall to an empty square?

Here is only my interpretation (can differ from what the inventor had in mind!): "Last Castle", "Normal Castle attacked by enemy" and "Normal Castle not-attacked" are not the same piece and they should have different names.

The last Castle should be automatically promoted to a King who cannot move/capture diagonally forward, the entire King is moved and no parts of him (Betza notation WbF) and after the move this King isn't allowed to be in check.

A normal (not-last) Castle attacked by the enemy can (but is not forced to) move/capture like a King, but only to squares not attacked by the enemy. If the attacked Castle doesn't move at all and is captured, that doesn't matter

A normal (not-last) Castle not-attacked by the enemy can only use it's outer Wall (pawn) moves: either 1 or 2 squares forward if they are empty, or turnover with an own piece 1 or 2 squares forward or 1 square forward diagonal or capture an enemy piece moving like the above mentioned King (Betza WbF)

As mentioned, this is just my interpretation of the rules, it is not necessary the opinion of the game inventor, and probably not upto date with the inventor's latest rule changes. For my taste, the rules especially for the "Castle", which is obviously the same name for multiple pieces with different move combinations, are way too complicated to be remembered and should be simplified if possible

The simplified rules you posted make sense, and are much easier to remember.

Especially that the game is lost with 0 Kings on the board, so that we have not to switch from non-royal to royal King, with each one having different move-combinations. And also that the King cannot turnover and only capture as Wazir, makes the over-complicated rules reasonable. Agree with your description 100%