Single Comment

Charles, I think Dipole Chess exposes taxonomy issues regarding chess variants on here (and the variant community).  What you see in Dipole Chess can, on the one hand, be seen as a bunch of new pieces being added.  On the other hand, it is a simple removal of a few rules to Normal chess, that could be summed up as a mutator. One could play with mutators, have the Dipole Chess rule in the waiting, and then use it to change the dynamics.  One could also use it as a game condition that kicks in to reduce draws in Normal Chess. 

Do you see how Dipole Chess can be argued to be nothing but a simple mutator ('simple' as in how it affects the rules, NOT in its impact)?  I see it that way.  I actually am a bit hesitant to give it the full name 'Dipole Chess' as if it is some radically new game.  It is merely a rules tweak, arguably the same that Near Chess is.  

In this, I believe Dipole Chess does call for work in the taxonomy department for chess variants, so we can have a bit more standardization, and allow for more rule variations to be played, while still playing a base game of a sort.

I do hope others care to join in and debate this subject here.  I will agree that Dipole Chess ends up coming off more different than even a game on a 10x10 grid with a few new variant/fantasy) pieces (and I do believe we should also come up with a standardize name for this category rather than 'fairy').