Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

(1) To Joyce, please do not leave out qualifications: we identify year 2011 of '8x8' as in deference to Betza and Seirawan, implicitly conceding
shortcomings of Black Ghost. However, do not rule out an introduced piece
a la Betza or Seirawan as solution Track One. (2) For all his language, we
never directly rated Duniho's ''inventions,'' the one and only
prolificist omitted before for obvious reasons, except right here
favourably with Eurasian  as selection for 2009. Any evaluation ought to
be balanced not all one way. Whosoever stews in his own juice, the site
moves on.  There should be nothing personal about each trio named for each
year, and by 2030 or 2040, many more designers of just one or five CVs, non-prolificists, may find
theirs  here too. Anyone can veto any choice, literally, as stated from
day one of ''NextChess.'' If any one person objects to actual play of
any CV in this thread, we remove it within 24-48 hours. Total consensus.
Now these are all Track One, the specialty for rest of season. For Year 2014,
chosen candidates are Great Shatranj (8x10),
King's Court (8x12 96 squares Sidney LeVasseur), Three Player Chess (96 spaces Zubrin, patented USP3652091). These all
have the ''feel'' of proximity to OrthoChess. Joyce may not consider
Great Shatranj his best, but it is desirable size he recently mentions. We are not selecting personal favourites so much as predicting what some cadre of anti-OrthoChessists may eventually endorse. Why not Chess being the first sport to break from one on one to one by one
by one, as Three Players? Absolutely all of the others so far are the following, numbering fifteen: 2013 Wildebeest, Fantasy Grand, Venator; 2012 Big Board, Courier de la Dama, Eight-Stone; 2011 Switching, Seirawan, Black Ghost; 2010 Centennial, Templar, Unicorn Great; 2009 Modern, Mastodon, Eurasian.

Next up is year-2015 three chosen CVs. We have 18 Track One candidates so
far through year 2014. We need some perspective. By percentage of its 4000
or so CVs, Chess Variant Page, everyone's favourite website here, is largely Track
Two. Track One is potential OrthoChess replacement, and Track Two is more
novelty, themed, whimsical, a la Betza. Probably CVPage is 80% Track Two
and 20% Track One. We want to winnow 50 or 100 of those latter for further
study. Most of us enjoy both categories. The analogy I thought out
beforehand is hunting and wildlife. As avid nature-lover, I oppose hunting
though I fish. Many friends of mine hunt, and I don't hold it against them
because  I can see they sincerely enjoy wild lands both ways, as gamesmen
and as viewers of wildlife -- or climbers, hikers, campers, canoeists. Now with Chess variants, I am more like my
hunting friends. I like both Track One and Track Two. However, proliferation and repeated reuse without attribution only confuse both sets of CVs, One and Two. This thread is Track One, in ongoing try to get some order, with full respect for the other  way of making CVs. Track Two tends to be the artwork, artistic expression for its own sake not so much to be played. When minimizing Track Two, I have analogized it to orthogonal basketweaving and needlepointing. Both styles of activity One and Two have their due place.

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.]

Not standing pat, we work our way to year 2030 first. So far 2009 Modern
Mastodon Eurasian; 2010 Centennial Templar Unicorn Great; (2011 Switching
Seirawan Black Ghost); 2012 Big Board Courier de la Dama Eight-Stone; 2013
Wildebeest Fantasy Grand Venator; 2014 Great Shatranj King's Court
Three-Player of Zubrin. The 8x8 64-square thought experiment for year
2011, parenthesized, is a throw-away, because our particular bias in our
particular list is that the small board is dead. Once before we quoted the
judge at cannibal Alferd Packer's trial, ''hanged by the neck until you
are dead, dead, dead.'' How so many feel about OrthoChess, driving the
rebellion, well, its starts and fits.

Track One year 2015:  Schoolbook Chess(8x10), Melee (9x9), Sissa (9x9).
We need one standard Carrera form that has lasted 400 years, so Sam 
Trenholme's Schoolbook is taken for play in 2015. George Boeree's Melee is only the second '9x9' and early use of short-range pieces before Joyce's and Begley-Jones'. Carlos Cetina's Sissa is the third 9x9, with natural novel piece, that does not have to be thought out with each move and position. That makes 21 ''Next Chesses,'' half or more of which would be better received than Crazy Queen(8x8) in a perfect world of level playing field.

USA Football was promoted by President Theodore Roosevelt despite
opposition in academia for its brutality. Touchdowns counted for five
points and field goals four in those days. One hundred years ago teams had
three downs to make ten yards. Previously they had two downs to make five
yards. Passes were legal, but incomplete ones drew penalties of up to 15
yards. So the game stayed mainly on the ground of the field 110 yards
long, which still is 110 in Canada. Forget Soccer, far and away preferred,
for convenience. There could be untold thousands of variations of
''football,'' by altering field size, downs, points, number of
players, substitutions, time periods, all in different combinations taken. In fact sandlot football, or basketball, or baseball, may well be played hundreds of different ways within neighborhoods. 
By logic and melding of conflicting interests, we want next-Chess threads
to resolve into 2, or 5, or up to 50 sustainable forms, not proliferating
unduly. It will take two years. (A previous analogy under Chessboard Math,
similar to this football one, was to professional Badminton, with its one or two
standardized Olympic forms.) Whatever is arrived at, certain websites
chosen will take it from there.

Reviving NextChess Track One, recall 2009 has Mastodon, Modern, Eurasian.
2010 Centennial, Templar, Unicorn Great. 2011 Switching, Seirawan, Black
Ghost. 2012 Big Board, Courier de la Dama, Eight-Stone. 2013 Wildebeest,
Fantasy Grand, Venator. 2014 Great Shatranj, King's Court, Three-player
(Zubrin).  2015 Schoolbook, Melee, Sissa. I don't think any one of the
contenders has been played publicly ten times. A century ago a few CVs were
enough, what Raumschach, Glinksi's, Bird's morphing into Capablanca and
maybe a dozen more of note? Don't hold out much hope for this forum to do
anything but proliferate in bourgeois artwork. And constructively some few
may have caught attention of reformers outside the confines. Lasker's
essay ''Reform in Chess'' (a book chapter) is also 100 years old soon.

Hutnik mentions Next Chess. This was the third thread of next chesses. In
chronological order were: Mastodon Modern Eurasian Templar Centennial
UnicornGr Switching Seirawan BlackGhost BigBoard CourierdlD Eight-Stone
Wildebeest FantasyG Venator GreatShat King'sC ThreePlayer Schoolbook Melee Sissa. I think about half of comment participants are inclined to see this developed, or so request of past Editors. Within IAGO, and endorsed by CVPage, why not select one of these CVs at a time every couple months? There may emerge only 2-4 from these particular 18-21 CVs. Then separate category on title page of CVP and 'What's New' would endorse the eventual 20-25 CVs for outreach with outside world. No one in history of the world knows more about the candidates, CVs and Mutators, than a core of two dozen radicals here from 'A'ronson to 'Q'uintanilla to 'Z'ade. The higher nominees out of this would not be 'Recognized' as of the past but for the future. Not addressed exactly in this comment are Track One, Track Two, Wildcards, and Hutnik's Mutating Class.

Elsewhere needing to be dropped here is this scenario for topic in year
2010. Even Brainking does not do that great with only 200-300 logged on a
time. At least Brainking had the sense to shrink a billion CVs to its
30-50, but it needs puzzles to keep that many. To show consistency to those
works not having been discussed lately: Let Gilman pick 2 of his 1000 he
wants played widely. Let Winther do likewise. 2+2=4. Betza, pick 5 and vote
1. Gifford self-selects 5 he would like widely played and everyone votes 1.
Three Falcon arrays. Rococo. That's 4+1+1+3+1=10. FRC as up to 50 arrays
nevertheless counts as 1. That's 11. Find some 9-14 more for 25 CVs. Since
this list is a re-do, there must have been tacit approval. Some entit(ies)
devising 20 CVs along these lines would do better than Brainking. Why?
Because we are in a position to say we have Chess, and nobody else does. Of
course we have Chess and nobody else does. It's a proven fact over and
over again, scientifically, mathematically, metaphorically.  Think about it
honestly if you can, free-liner designer, benigner resigner, diviner
Einsteiner, tree-piner recliner... The set-up would be a buffer of the
20-25 apart from the 4000 other CVs, with provision for Rich Hutnik's
Mutating Class for most of the 25, such that there should be withdrawals
and new arrivals. Obviously there are incredibly close calls, as mentioned
before, where you distinguish two rules-sets earning so close as 6397 and
6389 (primes). Since potluck contests have run their course, try something else.

We have thrown out ''Next Chess'' but not ''NextChess123.'' A fine
distinction.  Joe Joyce coined the term NextChess, as I recall.  Fischer announced in 1996, ''The old Chess is dead.''
What should replace it? All these authors below have a stake in their work. Can these 21 from earlier comments this thread be developed or winnowed under IAGO or other entities? So far we have Mastodon(Winther),
Modern(Maura), Eurasian(Duniho), Templar(Alvarez de la Campa), Centennial(Brown), Unicorn Great(Paolowich), Switching(Quintanilla), Seirawan(Seirawan), Black Ghost(Betza), Big Board(Shoenfelder), Courier de la Dama(Cruz), Eight Stone(Aiken), Wildebeest(Schmittberger), Fantasy Grand(Hatch),Venator(Winther), Great Shatranj(Joyce), King's Court(le Vasseur), Three-Player(Zubrin), Schoolbook(Trenholme), Melee(Boeree), Sissa(Cetina). Maybe Rich Hutnik could step in to explain whether proceeding to the Next Step would entail anything so specific as these actual named CVs. Are 21 too many? Or 200? I happen to think Brainking's mix of 38-40 CVs is far inferior to what we could easily draw up. On the other hand, among what Brainking has already, that could be CVPage-approved or Iago-approved constructively are Fischer Random, Janus Chess, Cylindrical, Capablanca Random -- with Reinhard Scharnagl okaying the latter. Otherwise, achieveable CVPage fare not in Brainking would be vast improvement toward the concept of 20 CVs, 30 CVs, or 50 CVs highlighted maybe even for real play.  Otherwise, staying the course of artwork is continuing counterproductive option. Ralph Betza says he became motivated that Chess is no one fixed form and that formal approved Chess revolutionized already about once every 500 years.  Bureaucrats associated with F.I.D.E. -- like one or two same anonymous naysayers within CVPage's own ranks -- would resist even such simple historical fact.