I don't buy it. By that definition, it seems that Descent: Journeys in the Dark is a Chess variant, because the heroes win (in most scenarios) by killing a specific boss monster, but Losing Chess is not, because the victory condition is extinction, and Nemoroth also is not, because the victory condition is stalemate.
I would say rather that being a 'chess variant' is a matter of family resemblance. Games that resemble Chess more closely than they resemble other well-known games are deemed chess variants. Checkers escapes being termed a 'chess variant' mostly because it is, itself, well-known; someone with long familiarity with Chess who was introduced to Checkers for the first time could plausibly decide it was a chess variant.
This resemblance is generally a result of having several key mechanics in common with chess (including a uniform tesselated playing area, armies of pieces with different movement capabilities, alternating turns in which a single piece belonging to that player can be moved, capture by displacement, and a single royal piece whose checkmate or capture ends the game)--and also NOT having too many key mechanics that Chess lacks. But no single feature is either indispensible or verboten; it's just a question of whether the game, taken in whole, reminds us of Chess more than it reminds us of something else.
I don't buy it. By that definition, it seems that Descent: Journeys in the Dark is a Chess variant, because the heroes win (in most scenarios) by killing a specific boss monster, but Losing Chess is not, because the victory condition is extinction, and Nemoroth also is not, because the victory condition is stalemate.
I would say rather that being a 'chess variant' is a matter of family resemblance. Games that resemble Chess more closely than they resemble other well-known games are deemed chess variants. Checkers escapes being termed a 'chess variant' mostly because it is, itself, well-known; someone with long familiarity with Chess who was introduced to Checkers for the first time could plausibly decide it was a chess variant.
This resemblance is generally a result of having several key mechanics in common with chess (including a uniform tesselated playing area, armies of pieces with different movement capabilities, alternating turns in which a single piece belonging to that player can be moved, capture by displacement, and a single royal piece whose checkmate or capture ends the game)--and also NOT having too many key mechanics that Chess lacks. But no single feature is either indispensible or verboten; it's just a question of whether the game, taken in whole, reminds us of Chess more than it reminds us of something else.