Enter Your Reply

In regards to standards, I see these arguments against them, in various
forms (this represents the way I remember them being stated.  They don't
necessarily belong to any one person):
1. They aren't needed.  I am curious upon what basis this is stated.  Is
it that we should have dozens of names for the exact same piece, and have
the same name refer to multiple pieces?  Is it that we shouldn't even
consider mutators?  Should every slight variation in board configuration
be considered a new form of chess, and Chess960 should be considered 960
different chess games each with different entries (We will have Chess1,
Chess2, Chess3, all the way up to Chess960 which is considered the 960th
position now in Fischer Random Chess).
2. It is impossible to obtain them, because no one will ever agree to
them.  Ok, this may be a valid point.  But why should we consider this to
be so, because there has been no luck in the past obtaining them?  My
understandings of standards is what they are agreed to and acknowledged. 
Also, can I comment here that I see people reaching conventional names for
pieces on here, the Ferz and the Wazir are two that come to mind.  Same
with the Knightrider.  Would people here say a Knightrider refers to
anything else BUT the Knight which gets to repeat its Knight move?  Even
now, I do see standards about, even if not thought of as such.  
3. Using standards hinders creativity.  Aren't standards merely agreed to
labels and parameters that enable different equipment and procedures to
work with one another?  On the label front, is this really much of an
expression of creativity?  The fact that 10 people can name a piece that
does the same thing different names show meaningful creativity how? In the
case of language, which is used to express creativity (fiction and computer
programs), would works of fiction be more creative if no words in the
language had a stable meaning?  
4. Use of standards means that you are being a bullying dictator and
forcing people against their will to accept things they won't accept. 
Can I ask people here if Linux and Internet technology are set up and run
by some bullying dictator somewhere?  Is the Internet based on standards? 
One can think of Microsoft, for example, when you think of bullying
standards, but is open-source run by bullies?  By the way, if no one
accepts the standards, then how would they be considered standards?
5. Things are fine the way they are now.  Why should we bother doing this,
it is just a bunch of work?  Are they really that fine, or is it that one
doesn't believe after you do all this work nothing will change.  
6. We don't need standards, because we can always play over the Internet.
 Ok, can I ask that when you do decide to play over the Internet, is having
recognizable symbols for the pieces when you play helpful or not?  Can
anyone argue that having standard recognizable symbols is NOT a standard?
7. We don't need to make this a formal project and officially label the
work as standards.  How about that be reframed as we officially recognize
what the community has done so far, and get it out in the open so new
people can understand things, and work to end up having some entry point
for them into the chess variant world?

If I have missed any, please let me know.  And feel free to add any that
may be missed.