John Lawson wrote on Wed, May 15, 2002 05:56 AM UTC:
Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think
that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess
variants. Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most
variants receive very little play. Therefore, the main point of the CVP,
at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants.
As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart
information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid.
Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired
them. A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem
incomprehensible and arbitrary. Other variants that are hard to appreciate
without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan
Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess.
One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my
Pizza Kings. It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric
humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad
newspapers.
We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an
international following. Therefore, it is likely that the point behind
Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or
interest in late 19th C. English musical theater. We also have to be
careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness.
The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a
forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without
getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages.
I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it
wandered away. I like clever and amusing literate writing. I think it
enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP. Intelligent,
well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.
