Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

i dunnoooo, i think the inventor of shatranj is gonna be upset about this
:)

Joe, my comments on the name Grand Chess 2 were specific to names that
clearly suggest a sequel to earlier games. In my own case, I have created
Grand Cavalier Chess, which is something of a synthesis between Grand
Chess and Cavalier Chess. In this name, 'Cavalier Chess' is a noun, and
'Grand' is a modifier, as the game is a sequel to Cavalier Chess, a game
I also invented, but expanded in a manner similar to Grand Chess.

lol :))

you should write to someone :)

Joe's last comment appeared too quickly to be a response to mine. It is a
response to Christine's comment, and mine just got between them. Also,
I'm thinking the inventor of Great Chess, not just the inventor of
Shatranj, might be concerned about you using the name of Great Shatranj.
:)

I see no problem with the Grand Shatranj name.  It is akin to the naming
convention seen with Grand Chess, Great Chess, Chess with Different
Armies, etc.  I see no problem with these types of names.  But, if I made
a game and called it Grand Shatranj 2, or Chess with Different Armies 2,
then those names are indeed problematic.

yeah good point Fergus, 'great' and 'grand' should be banned!!
shame on you Joe, can't you come up with something just a bit original
lol

Fergus, my objections were, to a great extent, pro forma. But the fact is
that my variant is deliberately named 'Grand' to refer to Mr.
Freeling's game, and I made that clear in my write-up. I deliberately
copied the setup to solve the problems I felt existed with my 10x8 variant
because I think the Grand Chess board and setup is an elegant solution to
those problems. What I didn't want was people to see presets for Grand
Shatranj and think: 'Oh, great, here's some idiot that didn't get the
message, even though it's in black and white' (even though on my machine
it's in black lettering on a grey background). 
Wow, there are several messages here, while I'm typing this - sorry,
Fergus, saw your comment between my answer to christine and edited it to
name her rather than have it look like a reply to your comment (this is
getting convoluted).
Okay, back to the original topic. Whatever that was. I truly don't see a
problem with naming something after something else under these
conditions:
1) with appropriate permission;
2) if even the direct descendants of the inventor are unaware they are the
heirs. In this case, they can't come after you. :-) Okay, if the origins
of the name are lost in antiquity might be a better rule.
Gary, if it was good enough, and it followed #1 & 2 above well, heck, do
it - you playtested Grand Shatranj I enough! And thanks for that.
And, finally, Christine, no, I'm just a plodder with no creativity...

Joe: You may have misunderstood my comment. When I stated '...But, if I
made
a game and called it Grand Shatranj 2, or Chess with Different Armies 2,
then those names are indeed problematic.'  I meant that 'me' not being
the inventor, should not use those names.  You [Joe] having created Grand
Shatranj, have every right to have a Grand Shatranj 2, 3, 4 , etc. 
Whereas I should not make any game called Grand Shatranj ____.  Case in
Point is Pillars of Medusa.  I first called it Medusa Chess... not knowing
there was already a Medusa Chess.  'Medusa Chess 2' would be
inappropriate, for reasons indicated in other comments here.  Thus, a
third name was chosen.

this is really getting messy, i guess this is as good a time as ever to
mention, Joe, that i was going to release a 'grand shatranj' also, maybe
i could name mine 'grand shatranj 2' and release it before yours he he
:)
would that be ok?

Gary, I'd be complimented if you put out a 'Grand Shatranj II', but
Christine has already claimed the name.
Christine, you have to send me the ZRF first, otherwise I let Gary have
the name. 
David, I'm perfectly willing to have the naming controversy here, under
the title of 'Grand Shatranj', because the controversy has some
legitimacy (and I don't mind a little advertising of my games either ;)
Since I firmly believe Grand Shatranj (and Great Shatranj, which you
playtested) are good games, and neither is out separately yet for this
controversy to spill all over their pages, then it is a better forum than
the game of some poor caught-in-the-crossfire poster who was probably
trying to praise the original game. Besides, I'm hoping that you put out
a Great Shatranj game with your own unique stamp on it. ;-)
Seriously, it may be good to have an editorial policy about names. I think
it should be simple. 'No Poaching!' would be a good first approximation,
but I believe it needs to go further than that. My 2 rules suggestion:
appropriate permission or lost in antiquity I believe are at least a good
start. The lost in antiquity rule allows us to call our games 'chess' as
Fergus has indirectly pointed out. (Christine, you got 1st crack at GC2, so
Fergus gets credit for that - okay, you get credit first, but I'm not
going to admit it.)  But I honestly don't see a problem with Gary doing a
variant of my game and using the name GC2 or 3 or whatever, as long as he
got my permission in advance. And I would want to see the game to be sure
it measured up (or down, as the case may be) to my standards as set in the
'original'. If those conditions obtained, and were demonstrated to the
editor, then the name should stand. 
And now I've got too much of a headache to actually make my chess moves.
This being serious stuff is not fun. Well, fortunately, I'm rarely really
serious, seriously! Now, back to having fun.

Joe: I suggest you re-read my related comments slowly, perhaps one word at
a time.  I have no desire to name a game Grand Shatranj 2, 3, 4 or Grand
Shatranj with any other name extension.

Joe, my immediate goal is to shift the debate from 'Grand Chess 2' to
'Grander Chess'.  If there was a 'Grandest Chess' posted here, then it
could host the debate.  I will keep an eye on this thread.

Joe, seriously, no one should take me seriously, i, too, am not releasing
a game called 'grand shatranj' or 'great shatranj', let alone having
those names with numbers. i think there would be no problem whatsoever
releasing a game with those names, and also, no problem using the 'grandchess' 
set up played with the ancient pieces. 
i highly doubt Mr Freeling would care.
i mean seriously, Mr Bird actually created 'capablanca chess', look at
all the similiar variants that followed.