Single Comment

George, let me jump around a bit. I was looking at Templar when you made
the 2014 comment, which includes Great Shatranj. So let me do a game from
2010, one from 2014, and one not yet chosen, instead of the 3 from 2010. 

Templar is, again, an add-on game, but very nicely done. The 4 square long
added ranks put a little more into the game than the usual 2 squares at
each end. And the templar is a nice piece. But it is one of a cluster of
similar and complementary pieces [eg: Gary Gifford's fye'tin] and feels
just a touch incomplete by itself, because it's an asymmetric piece
without its complement in the game. I'd put this game right next to the
line of acceptability, not sure which side, 2 steps from the ideal next
chess, whatever that is. 

Great Shatranj is a fine next shatranj game, but that would seem to make
it a less-than-fine next chess game. Let's compare and contrast it with a
game that is a good choice for a next chess, Falcon Chess. Both are played
on an 8x10, with similar setups - 10 pieces on the back ranks and 10 pawns
each on the second ranks. But they're not the same pawns. Falcon uses
modern pawns, with a double first step and en passant rules, Great
Shatranj uses the older 1 step pawns. [Not much difference, you'd think,
but openings play differently with 1-step pawns, and modern players often
don't have the patience to develop the pawns properly, leading to some
mid and late game contortions on occasion, because games are often won or
lost on the pawn structure.] The king and knights are the same in both
games, but the remaining pieces are literally worlds apart. 

Falcon Chess is in a classic traditional Western chess variant mold. It is
an expansion of orthochess, using a matched pair of sliders [rather than
the unmatched pair of power pieces often used in 8x10 games]. It makes 1
basic change, integrating a second, shortrange, pair of sliders into the
game, which maintains all the standard chesspieces and rules 'as is'
[except specific castling rules, adjusted to be more flexible and for a
larger board]. Great Shatranj, on the other hand, while it, too, makes 1
basic change, leaves almost none of the pieces intact. Great Shatranj is
alternate history: Capablanca Chess in a Grand Chess setup, with all of
the sliders changed to 1 or 2 square leapers. That the pawns also become
shatranj pawns, with no double first step, is almost incidental, though
this does slow the game down a bit more. For it is a slower game than
orthochess, more strategic and deliberate. And this is probably a second
strike against it, for the modern game is made for slashing attacks, the
devastating blow, the quick kill. And that can't happen in Great
Shatranj. Though there is great scope for tactics and strategy, Great
Shatranj is very definitely ancient warfare, lacking all the speed of
modern warfare exemplified in our western chess pieces. 

Perhaps Charles Daniel has the right of it by providing a standardized
large board with a core chess setup, and extra pieces to drop into the
corners. But of the three games discussed here, Falcon is Track 1, a
NextChess contender; Templar is Track 1&1/2, too close to the dividing
line to tell; and Great Shatranj is a NextShatranj contender, Track 1 in
another time and place. [And Track 2 here.]