Single Comment

Hello Charles.  For some reason, I am feeling that this thread should be part of the IAGO Chess System game, and not Omega Chess :-).

What will be in IAGO Chess, will end up having to be decided by consensus.  I actually only push for ONE thing, the restriction on promotion, because of the problematic issues that arises when you start adding more pieces to chess besides the Queen.  Do you want a flipped rook to be considered a 'Jester' piece that can be used to represent anything in the game?  There are issues I see with physical pieces if you don't add a restriction on promoting.  One may prefer to have a wider range, but explain how it is able to be done practically.  Let's say we have a Cardinal, Cannon, Marshall, and Amazon all in reserve, and then you want to promote a pawn to a piece.  How do you have it so you would have two Amazons around?  You end up declaring a flipped rook anything?  This is the issue I see regarding pawn promotion not being restricted.  One can say, 'Wait, we just play electronic version on CV website, and we are set'.  Ok, exactly how many people will you get to play here if they want to play chess?  And when do you exactly create a market for new pieces?

By the way, all that is asked with the 'restriction' anyhow, is that whomever decides to design a chess variant be able to have physical equipment map to the rules.  You don't have it so someone can bring in pieces into the game the equipment doesn't handle.  Like, do we force someone to have to use a salt shaker as a piece because you are missing a second piece?  Pretty much account for all the needed pieces, and don't require players to make stuff up.  At least be forthright to tell a person they have to flip a rook to be your piece in question.  Please let me know why this is not a preferred approach.

The basic idea of the IAGO Chess System is to start with normal chess as the base game, and then provide a migration path to deviate.  Why would you go beyond an 8x8 board as your board?  Are such boards readily available?  People can be free to choose, but how about we have some standards by which the conversation can be provided?  What you see here with your comment about not enough play-testers relates to this.

Also the reason for an evolutionary approach to chess, and 'the next chess' was to break the 'solved' issue with chess, that could cause the audience to end up dissolving over time.  I believe it would be beneficial to have a middle ground between the variant community and the normal chess community.