Enter Your Reply

Greetings Fergus.  I just wanted to comment on several things, based upon
my reading over what has been written on here, and the history of chess
variants, including abstract strategy games as a whole.
1. At any given time, I see there will be a set of rules that will
represent a set way to play.  There will be standardization in these
rules.  What I have suggested is that variants be factored in and
standardized into this.  Do you have objections to these being in the next
chess: Reserve pieces (enter by drops and gating), variable set ups,
shuffles, mutators, multiple board layouts? 
2. Beyond just the current static set of rules, will be a framework for
managing change, with the full expectation that the rules will adapt and
change over time.  Ignoring this reality ignores the reality of abstract
strategy games as a whole: Any game with a static set of fixed rules, the
moment the rules are written down and played, is putting an expiration
date in place.  The game will push to be solved, particularly when there isn't luck or hidden information that allows the game to map to the psyche of the players who play them.  Any living game makes changes.  If it didn't, then the world would still be playing Sharanj.
3. If you don't have crossover appeal to the FIDE chess community to
offer something that would appeal to them, you aren't going to draw much
of a crowd.  And this will lead me up to my next point.  There is NO WAY
the Next Chess will even get remotely as popular as chess, without the
current chess community picking it up.  It just isn't going to happen. 
Next Chess is going to have to be able to be picked up by current chess
players.  I believe, in some sense, the Next Chess has to be an evolutionary next step for chess, that would be like the way FIDE chess is an extension of Shatranj.
4. If you want to create an organization with a limited shelf life, then
create an organization dedicated exclusively to this new game.  Look
towards fighting an uphill battle to promote your game, and try to compete
against commercial games out there that are funded better, and try to get
the attention of the world.  There are multiple examples of this
happening, and the organization fading away.  They had their 15 minute of
fame and then they were gone, and the game become a non-played relic that
now rests in here.  The reason for IAGO being IAGO (and it is an extension
of an idea in the 1990s to start a chess variants association) is to
provide support and promotion for a WIDE RANGE of games, so they all stand
a better chance of making.  IAGO is about the best shot now of the Next
Chess ever coming about.  If the CV site, IAGO and the British Chess
Variants Society get together and work on the Next Chess project, we can
get something.  
5. We are going to have to come up with a meaningful ratings system for
people playing a range of games anyhow here.  The single game approach,
without cross-linking hasn't worked at all.  
6. IAGO is fully dedicated to helping whatever the Next Chess is, and help
it catch on.  Only way we will get this is going a multigame organization,
so that all the games have a shot to make it, and the best rise to the
top.  And only by having a large group who plays multiple games, will
there be enough people to test what will work vs what won't.
7. The idea of 'multiple rules' is to have a single framework that
allows for customizing of initial conditions and game conditions, as
scenarios, they way they do in ASL.  Unless you believe that you can
somehow have a game with fixed positions, and no changes EVER in the
board, and no mutators, and just some set of pieces hat never change, and
no reserves, and no formations, and no shuffles, and that it would work
and catch on and supplant FIDE chess some day, I believe you need to
account for all this, in a standardized set of rules.  I personally don't
think something that is static everything isn't going to appeal to the
variant community at all.  It may get played sometime in a pool of games,
but not be the main game people focus on.  Among the FIDE folk, it would
seem weird.  And among people not playing chess now, it would seem odd. 
Of course, you can try to argue that it be easier than chess. But at what
cost to depth will you do to have that happen?
8. Another reason for accounting for a range of things that modify games
is to have an environment rich enough that play of a range of
configurations can help the beer configurations rise to the top.  Short of
this by experience approach, you are looking a chess in an ivory tower with
an egghead shouting out to the world how they have 'THE NEXT CHESS'. 
Yes, we are going to need standardization here, but this doesn't mean
that one game is going to be it.  In this hubris of people thinking they
know best, I could argue 'Near Chess' and 'Near vs Normal' and other
formations, are THE BEST thing to start with when doing The Next Chess. 
The opening book is more varied than FIDE, and the rules less complicated
(there is a way for people chess faster by it).  Besides this, you can mix
formations to wreck book memorization, while having stability in line
structure.  And you can play it NOW without any need for special
equipment.  Now, you want me to stop shoveling the bull, and acknowledge
other things that also lend to the experience: reserves, mutators,
shuffles and different board types?  I don't want to shovel bull.  I will, however, say that Near Chess brings multiple formations to the mix, but it alone isn't the answer.

Anyhow that is my take on this.  And thanks for the feedback.