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