Single Comment

The word 'Architecture' is actually a good one to use here, particularly
if the intention of what is being made intends to be used.  My comment
regarding the 'arteest' is a case where the person isn't thinking in
terms of what they are making actually being played by people in a
meaningful way, but rather was just an idea someone has, that they pen
down, as a form of expression on their part.  They aren't thinking in
terms of the player, but their own needs.  If it is done from an architect
standpoint, then it is good.  If it is done as a painter, for just
self-expression, that is another thing.

As for what I want, I am taking this from a perspective of a person
running an organization that seeks to promote abstract strategy games, rather than a person who is a game designer (and yes, I have done that, and have done the 'arteest' thing myself).  What I want is there to be a way for Chess variants to work together and lend to a greater community experience that will increase the numbers of people playing them, and lend to a dialog between the FIDE crowd and the variant crowd.  I want something that will be lived in, rather than looked at as some oddities in a museum somewhere. That is my goal.  If I were writing from a designer standpoint, I would be wanting people to play my games, and create more as a basis for personal expression.

I am of the belief that whatever the NextChess is, it isn't going to be
one of these self-satisifying interests projects.  Instead, it will be something that is a mix of personal insighs, and discovers, a part accident, and a whole LOT of playing and testing by a community of players.  

And as for standards, my belief is that, if you want a community of people
to take to whatever comes out from the NextChess project, the game is going
to need a bunch of people to input, and the community to be able to
communicate and expect things.  The standards provide a framework for
adoption.  Standards agreed to by a community enable things to evolve and
adapt.

Let me give you an example of a game that totally disregards the idea of
standards (and creating for one's own interest): Seirawan Chess.  Yes, the game has cool features.  Gating, which is how the pieces get in (and a name I had come up with to describe it), is cool.  But it didn't have a name, thus the concept couldn't be used by anyone else.  The take the name of the pieces: Hawk and Elephant.  Is there ANYONE on this planet who had used such pieces before with that name and those type of movement?  No, Seirawan and Harper didn't like the conventions that had been used for CENTURIES and decided to do it their own way.  They also don't want anyone else to touch it.  It is their game and theirs alone.  They own it, and decide what to do with it.  They don't want it to be anything but their game, and that is that.  And you aren't supposed to use their pieces for any other purpose but what they intended to.  The Elephant from their game is a Knight+Rook combination, and that is it.  In this, if there were conventions and standards, then whatever the pieces were used in Seirawan Chess could be used by the Chess variant community for is own games, and there is a market for equipment created that is sustainable.

And, in this, is what I describe as the need for standards.  Without them,
you produce a million different Seirawan Chess games, each of which are
their own deadends and don't represent anything to be adopted by he
players, and allowing them, through their play, to make the needed changes
to keep the game alive.  Without standards, every few years yet another
person comes along and creates the same piece, or same twist on things,
and then adds YET ANOTHER name for the same piece to the mix.  Look at
what has happened with 4 player chess.  The game gets reinvented by large
numbers of people, each with their own twists and variants, and each by
the creator thinking they are the one.

In all this, because you haven't established and standards and
conventions, results in fragmentation and a selection process of picking a
game that might become the next one, to be like lottery, with each person
dipping into a bag to pull something out and hoping all the selections
line up.  And in this, every item is something with the word 'Chess'
after it.

Well, what I am suggestion here is different.  Work on a way for players
to 'roll their own' for some extent, to experiment, and then see what
works, and by the use of standards and conventions, communicate their
findings.  Have a way for he variance to fit into the ecosystem whatever
the Next Chess will be.  Have it so that people know what the heck is
being talked about.  This is standards and conventions.  Lack these, and
you are doing a personalized lottery system where games played are ends
unto themselves, with everyone having their own preference and nothing
contributing to the collective whole.

On this front, I am looking at a spreadsheet of over 500 chess variants
that are playable NOW on, all cataloged, described and indexed which I
will look to get into a database.  Not exactly sure how this pick one of
500 everyone and play, will lead to the Next Chess.

Ok, I have rambled enough.  I hope my 'arteest' comment makes sense now,
and is not seen as offensive as it first appeared.