Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
Standardization[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on Mon, Jan 20, 2003 02:38 PM UTC:
Proposal: Establish a Chess Variants Standards and Guidelines Committee

Purpose: To publish guidelines and standards relating to the development
and playing of chess variations. Guidelines would be used by the chess
variant community to help reduce confusion and inconsitency. Enforcement
of such guidelines would be voluntary.

Membership: Obvious choices would be: Hans Bodlaender, David Pritchard,
Ralph Betza (just to keep things interesting), John William Brown, Fergus
Duniho, Glenn Overby, Michael Howe, Peter Aronson. Membership would be
non-paying.

Hosting: The Chess Variant Pages would host the committee and act as a
public forum for committee deliberations and for posting of any committee
publications.

Positions: 

President: Responsible for choosing which issues get decided when
Secretary: Responsible for writing and posting committee publications
Treasurer: Unnecessary?

Peter Aronson wrote on Mon, Jan 20, 2003 05:31 PM UTC:
At the risk of sounding dense, David, just what would we be standardizing?

David Howe wrote on Mon, Jan 20, 2003 06:15 PM UTC:
That would be up to the committee. :)

Seriously -- the committee might publish standards and guidelines
regarding the naming of certain common pieces or variants. Consider how we
currently reference 'Chess': FIDE Chess, International Chess, Western
Chess, Usual Chess... It would be nice to settle on an accepted standard.

Coming up with standards and guidelines wouldn't force anyone to use them,
but we as editors might make use of them when editing documents for
publication. I'm not trying to stifle creativity, but merely avoid some
confusion and inconsistencies.

All the discussion over Marshal(l) vs. Chancelor got me thinking about how
issues like that could be resolved. Hence my suggestion. I won't be
surprised if nothing comes of it however.

3 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.