Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

AltOrthHex has to be Charles Gilman's top contribution so far.  Put it
today at #9 in NextChess Track I.  The last in-slot was early 2011.  That
was within Track II, the fanciful CVs to be spun off, where Rococo is #1
and Tetrahedral #2.  After this, Track II will develop in own
thread and article
separate from Track I. 

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSaltorthhexches. 
There would have to a lot more play to settle whether Glinski or McCooey is
the better orientation for handling Knight's mode.  However, Charles'
splitting up the Rooks has stood the test of several years as original and
correct.  Two three-way Rooks are the right solution for hexagonal, shunning
alternative six-way Rooks of the last hundred years.  It makes hexagonal geometry viable to
replace Simpleminded f.i.d.e.-type Chess.  AltOrthHex in one of its
subvariants Gilman has designed could become the standard Chess of
hexagons, let's say alongside several square-based standards -- bringing
variety to Chess and temporary Computer submission.

Placement at #9 suggests AltOrthHex to be better idea than the best of the
updated "Carreras," Schoolbook Chess http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSschoolbook, well-analysed for a CV, itself dropped to #11 to date (Eurasian between them dropping to #10).  

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess9 --the earlier part of ongoing article, preceded by NextChess 8 and so on.  Next nominated to rank is actually another Carrera, 13-year-old 
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/not-particularly-new.html  by Peter Aronson.  Where should it be placed all things considered?

As a newer chessvariants.com member I'm not sure this is the best place to
post my ideas of what a Next Chess might be like, but here goes. In an old
Chess Federation of Canada blog entry of mine I gave 12 criteria I'd like
in an ideal chess variant or board game of skill. Looking back, many of
these seem too general, but I'll cut & paste them here in case they are of
any interest. Note that at least some criteria are based on subjective
judgement, e.g. I don't think Shogi pieces look as aesthetic as standard
chess pieces, at least in my Western eyes:

1. Computer-resistant (e.g. v. humans not close to best);
2. Any endgame stage not in signif. danger of compromise, e.g. by
tablebases (adjourning poss.);
3. Signif. pop. in N. Amer. & elsewhere (ideally clubs & cash prize
events);
4. Tested (e.g. centuries);
5. Rules not too complex/simple;
6. Has signif. lit. & culture (ideally no licensing/copyright on game);
7. Fixed start position (e.g. aesthetic & not same as chess if variant, or
empty board before 1st player moves);
8. Opening phase not in danger of being played out soon;
9. 2 players usually;
10. Not too many/few pieces or board squares/cells/points & play on 1
board;
11. Pieces look & move nicely & board can be on coffee table (ideally fixed
start position not same as chess if variant);
12. Has mateable kings.

Currently I feel that all 12 of the above criteria cannot ever be even
minimally satisfied by any one chess variant. Sac Chess, a 10x10 variant of
my own creation, was designed to have the potential to one day at least
minimally fulfill all 12 criteria, but the rise of self-teaching computers
(i.e. using neural net techniques) has destroyed my hope that Sac Chess
would be even minimally computer resistant, in terms of a human always
being the best player. My best guess is that aside from a variant that
features changing the rules for how the pieces or game is played every
turn, which would thus be too complex and/or unnatural to play and enjoy
for most people, a very large board size (larger than 19x19) might be the
best hope for a computer resistant variant, but then other of the 12
criteria listed above would not be met.

If we ignore the issue of computer dominance of a game, and the increased
possibilities for cheating that that brings (especially for internet play),
we should assess the other current weak points of chess before deciding if
it needs replacing any time soon, purely in terms of dominance (before we
decide what to replace it with) - chess variants can still co-exist with a
dominant chess for a long time, too.

The other current weak points of chess, besides computer dominance of it,
IMHO are possibly extensive databases, endgame tablebases and the
difficulty top players have in beating each other when using many Black
openings. Are these truly serious weaknesses that threaten the game's
short-term survival, even? I would say no. Yet, like all previous versions
of chess, the immortal game will not live on in its current form forever.
How long does it have left? In a discussion long ago on the Canadian chess
message board chesstalk, I asked International Master Jean Herbert how long
he thought chess might last with its basic rules intact, and after noting
that 'The brand is too strong' he opined it would be at least 500 years
before the death of chess. A game inventor posting on the website, always
on the lookout to push chess variants of all sorts, thought it wouldn't
even last 30 years. I supposed about 100 years would elapse, which is as
good a guess as any IMHO, especially since my bias is less strong either
way.

Even though I don't see the urgency for there to be a Next Chess (barring
future ruinous levels of computer-assisted cheating that may one day wreck
organized board game play in general), I'll now make note of some Game
Courier chess variants (presets) I've thought about playing at some point,
as well as ones that I rejected. It may contribute somehow towards people
deciding someday what to rule in or out as possible Next Chess candidates.
Some of the ones I've thought of playing are more for fun or novelty than
possible replacements for chess, but I generally chose games that were at
least minimally popular, and I much preferred those with rule enforcing
presets (unless I was especially attracted to a variant otherwise).

Games I ruled in for my possible play on Game Courier include chess itself,
Crazyhouse, Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (Symmetric or standard version),
McCooey's Hexagonal Chess (Hexajedrez or standard), Shogi, Chinese Chess,
Alice Chess, Seirawan Chess, Marseillais Chess, Circular Chess, Smess,
Eurasian Chess, Four Kings - Double Mate (Chatarunga) Four Way Chess and Sac Chess.

I found that the above 17 games (many of which quite resemble chess) break
down into 11 types: Drops used, Hexagonal board, Chinese Chess style rules
used, Double move rule used, 10x10 board used, 3D chess, 8x8 & very
chess-like, compound pieces used, Round board used, Smess concept, 2 armies
for each player. Quite a variety of types, which I deliberately steered
for.

Some of the above are not altogether logical games at times, it seems to
me, but their positive sides attract me. Chinese Chess, for example, has a
strange rule concerning the kings not being allowed to see each other on an
open file at long distance, even, but I suppose it's a kludgy rule needed to allow for a decent number of basic checkmates. Eurasian chess is totally
new to me, but I like that only the king can't cross the river, compared to
Chinese Chess, and yet the king still has offensive power due to the same
sort of rule as above.

Now for some notable cases of variants I didn't like so much, in spite of
not rejecting immediately:

Berolina Chess is too close to regular chess, and I didn't like a player
being able to easily open a file with a pawn move;
Korean Chess I found overly complex, and I didn't like a pass rule being
allowed;
Losing Chess doesn't appeal to me in spite of any strategic depth it might
have, since giving away material as a policy seems illogical.
Raumschach is a 3D variant I'd like except it sorely lacks a healthy number
of 'basic mates' - it never occurred to me that there would be such a
fundamental problem with at least some chess variants. Circular chess is
not quite as bad this way, and a round board is a fun concept. With Alice
Chess I had a sound 3D chess variant backup for Raumshach;
Extinction Chess has a similar problem to Losing Chess for me, in that the
concept involved seems unnatural/illogical;
Capablanca Chess didn't appeal to me for 2 reasons: I don't like
rectangular boards, and the Chancellors of both sides could develop
symmetrically and be immediately traded off, though there may be a
strategic reason against this I'm not aware of (Grand Chess has a similar
drawback, and I also mildly don't like the illogic of not being allowed to
promote to a piece type the opponent hasn't captured yet). Seirawan Chess
doesn't have this last drawback, though I would note that, strangely, there
may be less playable openings than in chess (e.g. it may be dangerous to
play an Open Sicilian with White in S-Chess, perhaps);
Honourable mention should go to Rococo, which I barely don't like enough
because so many pieces are queen-like in their range, in spite of differing
capturing methods, and the board's outer ring used only for leaping
captures doesn't seem to make full enough use of a 10x10 board.

My favorite commercial variant is one that regularly changes the rules and
may be computer-resistant. It is called Knightmare Chess, and you can find
it in the CVP's Amazon store. It uses cards to change rules or introduce
new conditions in the game, and it could be described as Magic: the
Gathering meets Chess.

Fergus wrote:

"My favorite commercial variant is one that regularly changes the rules and
may be computer-resistant. It is called Knightmare Chess, and you can find
it in the CVP's Amazon store. It uses cards to change rules or introduce
new conditions in the game, and it could be described as Magic: the
Gathering meets Chess."

Thanks Fergus. The info regarding the 3rd edition of Knightmare Chess (if
that's an edition that you're familiar with) states the recommended age
range as 10-15 years. So, at least the game is not too complex, while since
you enjoy it, it's not too simple for at least some adults to enjoy,
either. The question is, could it ever be massively popular, say if
assisted by the decline of standard chess? Also, I'd mention that while I
didn't try to see what the board, pieces and cards look like (if that's
possible on Amazon), I suppose that it's possible a board and set for the
game could be one day made to look elegant on someone's coffeetable, with
the cards kept for storage within, say, the belly of a wooden folding
board. It may seem like a small thing, but one wonders how many people took
up chess or at least occasionally play it because there's a nice set on a
coffetable, or as seen in a movie.

I neglected to mention in my previous post at least one thing that may be
of interest, if it hasn't been noted elsewhere already. I found Omega Chess
(commercial variant) somewhat attractive, but what made me decide against
it was that a K & R vs. K ending would often be a draw, if I understand
the rules correctly. That's since the lone king could hide in a Wizard
square adjacent to one of the 10x10 board's four corners, when all the side
with the R can do is deliver stalemate, which I think is still a draw in this game. Since I already had other 10x10 board variants I was interested in possibly trying, that did it for Omega Chess in my books, since one would expect K & R vs. K to be a win on a square board normally.

I recently bought the third edition of Knightmare Chess, but it was an earlier version that David Howe and I used to play together. On the box, it says it's for ages 10 and up.

That's a good point concerning the Omega Chess board, though it doesn't affect the worth of using Champions and Wizards in other games. For my only game with isolated corner spaces like Omega Chess has, I had a lot of diagonal moving pieces and called it Holywar for the presence of these pieces.

Omega Chess is not a great game for a few reasons.  The endgame effect of
the corner squares is one.  The size of the board relative to the power and
starting position of the pieces is another.  (Omega on a 10x8 with hanging
corner squares is definitely better.)

In Brouhaha I had extra pieces starting off the board on 'hanging' corner
squares, but they don't have adverse effect on play or endgames because you
can't move to them unless you are capturing a piece that hasn't moved off
yet (which never really happens in practice.)  Basically, they're just
launch pads.  Omega Chess would benefit from this rule as well.

Omega Chess is better than Roman Chess, which increased the board size to
10x10 and added non-royal pieces that move like Kings. The Champion and
Wizard have longer range than a King, and short-range pieces like these can
have a suitable role in large variants. Still, it probably is a good idea,
when you are expanding the size of the board, to include some riders among
the new pieces. The Marshall and Archbishop are suitable additions to a
larger board, and so are the Cannon and Vao. In a large variant that
includes some extra riders, including some extra short-range pieces can
help fill out the distribution of piece values and add some variety to
piece exchanges. Also, on a large board, short-range pieces can help with
defense while the long-range pieces move across the board to attack.

Fergus describes it better, that Omega Chess is average CV if only on the
right size board, 8x10 or 8x12 with another line piece.  It is just obvious not
to have mid-range pieces alone on 10-deep.  That and the advertising, like Gothic, cause
it to be marked low, but it's average if they just change the board because
exactly Wizard and Champion were not used til then.

Next Chess has Bifurcators ranked number one.  They are the problem theme solution to the OrthoChess crisis in that they have mathematical appeal.  At our leisure Joe Joyce, myself, Jeremy Good have made successive nominations, and the target date is 2030.  The project for fun is unofficial informal series of threads started in 2008.  

#1 Bifurcators including Winther's 40 new ones would need more than Gustavian  board, at least 8x10.  #2 Great Shatranj actually has debt to Kozune where its compounds were already used and board size does improve to the 80 squares from Kozune's 9x9 attempt.  #4 Mastodon takes up with century-old Pasha, appealing short-ranger in being leaper without oblique direction.  #5 Three-Player dynamics are not so easily simplified as four-player implementations  of Chess.  

#6 Unicorn uses the conventional Nightrider together with the Carrera compounds that torture the Knight.  Schoolbook is the chosen variant at #10 for those very Carreran Bishop-N and Rook-N, the two most popular fairy pieces, because of Trenholme's detailed game annotations.  Big Board of 8-rank is the pre-placement game with all orthodox pieces of Shoenfelder.  

#11 Fischer Random, really almost 200 years old now as CV idea, is getting current revival with much chatter at ChessBase about singleminded Fischer himself.  #7 Sissa has unique solution in brand new type.  Eurasian #9 is perfect Western-pieces implementation of 100-year Dawson Canon, hopper to go with Chinese cannon. 

Time Travel #3 is promising wildcard like other 4- and more dimensional games that could be considered.  It probably belongs in Track Two with Rococo and Tetrahedral as forever to remain variant not Orthodox.