[swallowtail1056-collab]

What does this PR add or change?

Adds KitsuneChess, a free bilingual (Japanese/English) chess opening trainer covering 100 openings with move-by-move guidance, verified for accuracy using Stockfish and python-chess.

Affiliation

I am the author/developer of this project.

Eligibility evidence

This is a Hidden Gem submission — the project does not yet meet traction thresholds (no press coverage, small community presence so far).

What it offers: 100 openings fully verified move-by-move with Stockfish + python-chess, 1000 tactics puzzles sourced from Lichess open data, live human/AI play, and 9 long-form chess history/education articles. Full bilingual (Japanese/English) support, which is uncommon among opening trainers on this list. Site has been actively developed and updated since May 2026.

Closest existing entries

Closest are Chessly and Chessbook, which offer opening repertoire training. KitsuneChess differs by being fully bilingual (Japanese/English) and free, with each opening's move accuracy independently verified via Stockfish rather than relying solely on course-author input.

Checklist

• [☑ ] I read contributing.md.
• [☑ ] I filled in the Affiliation and Eligibility evidence sections above.
• [☑ ] The project is more than 30 days old (younger projects are deferred by default).
• [ ☑] The entry follows the required format: - [Name](link) - Description.
• [☑ ] The description starts with a capital letter and ends with a period.
• [ ☑] The resource is actively maintained (updated within the last 12 months).
• [☑ ] The resource is not already on the list.
• [☑ ] The entry is in the correct category, added at the bottom.
• npx awesome-lint passes locally.

Link to the resource

https://kitsunechess.com/

[atamano]

Revised after going through the opening pages in the repo. My first version of this review asked for two small fixes and said I'd merge; that was written before I'd read the content, and it was wrong.

Closing this one, and the reason is the Hidden Gem case rather than the formatting.

The exception doesn't apply here. It asks for quality evidence — open source with tests, a public methodology, real discussion, an independent mention, or a demonstrably non-trivial implementation. The repo is public and about.html does document the checking, so on paper that's met. But I sampled 20 of the ~106 opening pages, and what the methodology verifies isn't what the entry is offering.

Most pages run exactly 14 steps of commentary, around 11 words each, all closing on the same sentence: "That's the main line — try continuing the game yourself from here!" A second group narrates rather than explains:

White develops the pawn to e4.
Black develops the pawn to c5.
White develops the pawn to e5.

with a single 💡 note per page carrying the only real idea. "Develops the pawn" occurs 23 times in the sample, which isn't how the move is described in English.

Checking lines with python-chess and Stockfish confirms the moves are legal and not blunders. But the main lines of 100 openings are in every free database already — the explanation of why is the part that would carry value, and that's the part nothing verifies. So the engine work validates the half that isn't the contribution, and the 106 pages don't reach "demonstrably non-trivial".

Without the exception, the ordinary thresholds apply. For a website that's any two of: online 12+ months, organic community discussion, an active community of its own, coverage by a chess publication. kitsunechess.com has been up since May and I can't find any of the other three, so it's 0 of 2. The repo is at 0 stars against a ~50 bar. You flagged the traction gap yourself, so none of this should be a surprise — it's the route around it that doesn't hold.

On the category, Openings already carries Chessly, Chessbook and Chessreps, which triggers the saturation rule: a fourth needs a substantial practical difference, not a variation in presentation. Bilingual coverage is a genuine gap on this list and the format is different from SRS drilling. That argument works when the walkthroughs teach something the trainers don't. As written, they don't.

Worth saying plainly: the template was filled in properly, the affiliation was disclosed without being asked twice, and you named the closest entries. That's better than most submissions here, and it's why the first review went the way it did.

If you come back with it, the bilingual angle is still the interesting part. What would need to change is the writing — far fewer openings, covered far more deeply, with the plans, the pawn structures and the middlegames that follow. Twenty openings explained properly would be a stronger submission than 106 narrated.

---

For transparency: I evaluate submissions against the contributing.md checklist with AI assistance, so the same criteria get applied the same way to everyone — including entries I add myself.

[swallowtail1056-collab]

Hi Antoine ***@***.***), Thank you very much for your detailed feedback and for taking the time to review KitsuneChess. I am truly honored by your assessment of the project as a "Hidden Gem" and that you recognized its unique features, such as the move verification and bilingual support. I completely understand and respect your decision regarding category saturation and the project's relative novelty. Keeping the quality and balance of the "Awesome Chess" list high is essential. I will take your advice to heart and focus on growing the community, gathering third-party feedback, and proving the long-term value of the project. Regarding your initial points on the lint errors and description phrasing, I have updated the branch to ensure full adherence to your standards. Once KitsuneChess has matured further and gained sufficient traction, I would love to resubmit it for your consideration. Thank you again for your valuable insights and encouragement. Best regards, Anyuri ***@***.***) 2026年8月31日(月) 18:38 Antoine ***@***.***>:

…

Closed #14 <#14>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#14?email_source=notifications&email_token=CEH7QJLXFWGVKSTGHLVGC2D5MVBPZA5CNFSNUABQM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2JONZXKZKFOZSW45CON52GSZTJMNQXI2LPNYXTGMBSGY4TSMZZGQYDPJTSMVQXG33OUZQXK5DIN5ZKKZLWMVXHJLDGN5XXIZLSL5RWY2LDNM#event-30269939407>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/CEH7QJJSGSATMVIB3R2253L5MVBPZAVCNFSNUABGKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHMYTEMJWGY3TQNJUGE5US43TOVSTWNJSHE3DIOBYHA2DNILWAI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>