Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

May I propose the IAGO Chess System be considered as part of this
discussion?
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSiagochesssyste

I am of the belief now that the Chess community is settling on Speed Chess
to resolve a lot of its issues.  I would suggest the reasons why be studied
by the variant community.

Ok, how about we start a 'syncretism project'?  We create a school of
competitive chess variant playing that involves games that are a mix of two
or more chess variants?

Anyone up for this?

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/conversion-chess

Further syncretism. Games of this sort can be considered 'themed' and a
good method of generating themed games is to combine similar points of
existing variants.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/glennsdecimal.html  Meiriqi is syncretic. Syncretic the way Smith coins it.

Well, what I did was just look at some random variants, picked out some
interesting things from them, and worked a variant around those. If there
are too many special features, I try to blend them together, especially
where common points arise. (Some people don't do this, resulting in some very ugly variants.) Perhaps you can create Chimera #2, Rich.

Thanks for the clarification John.  Please give me insight into how we can
derive a more universal application from this.

I cited the inspirations for Liberation Chess in the introduction, and I
wanted people to see what elements I have used in the game.

I am not sure what I am seeing with Liberation Chess, outside of the board
looks cool, and we may have a way to handle a range of variants with it. 
Please fill me in on what I am looking for here.

http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/liberation-chess

Examine it, and perhaps you should find insight in the syncretic process
of variants.

Hello John.

I believe you are onto something here.  What you describe is what I would
like to see.  I believe an important part to this is, even if people in
their own games have their own terminology and so on, when engaging in a
common discussion, a common lexicon of terms is used to describe this. 
Also, working on ways for players to combine different works from the past
would help.

Let me chime in a sec from an IAGO perspective (PLEASE don't take this as
namedropping as a plug).  IAGO (read here myself would like to see IAGO do
this) would like to elevate the chess variant community by having different
variants on the IAGO World Tour, and also to have a recognized 'Chess
Variant Player of the Year' and also have a universal ranking for variant
players, across a pool of games.  Besides this, IAGO would also like to
have the variant community be able to input in the future of chess, by
having the common works on here lending to the discussion.  All this is
done for mutual benefit to the community, like variant pieces being
produced commercially, and variants being taken as a legitimate form of
chess.

So, for all this, IAGO (again read me seeing what I believe IAGO needs to
do) would like the variant community to come together and push things in
this direction.  Have something out of this efforts that can be used, and
IAGO get behind it.  In this, go for what has been spoken on, and get stuff
happening.

Thus, if we are not to be able to reconcile our own works, thinking too
much that our variants are the 'right' one, perhaps we should try
reconciling previous works. That bring us to syncretism. A new wave of
variants shall arrive, giving new life in amalgamation. The more different
the variants the better.

I want to see creativity in Chess also.  I also would like the variant
community to be more mainstream, and generate more player interest.  What I
see needs to he handled regarding creativity is to have is to that what
people are working on had an ability to generate synergy between different
designs, and ideas can mingle together.  I also would like it to be
structured so we can have an evolutionary migration happen.  Without any
such actions, you will end up with the chess clock being the only thing
tinkered with, any the variant community getting shut out of talks.  Of
course, the variant community could then act like it is 'too good' and
'too smart' for the masses, but that is sour grapes.

New games may also be exhausted, and people do not like constant new games,
so I think one should be created that is less exhaustible. In such we
should look at history of Chess to see all the problems and address them
specifically, as I believe that when exhaustions should be negated, it
makes for better than if new exhaustions are made, which we have with new
variants, whether good or not. If you agree, help the cause:
http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/drafting-page

I'm not discouraging creativity of Chess variants. The problem is that
everyone has their own solution to the next Chess, many I think
ill-considered. Some of these solutions are bland and inelegant, like the
dreaded Capablancoids, and others are kludgy or with some random new piece.
The remaining variants, while good both in theory and play, may not catch
on.

''Even the smallest rule change has significant effect. Let's call it as
it is -- we are making different chess-like games. It is a different game
regardless of how chess-like it is.'' --Charles Daniel
You had to click on extension for that part of comment, so I raised it
here. Lasker agonized to come up with simply switching Knight and Bishop and to grade Draws as to Stalemate etc. differently; only the latter subtle change became his serious suggestion and it was considered wild enough. Of course grand-masters today still revive that for subterfuge. The book with chapter on Lasker's idea for reform is not immediately available for complete accuracy. Capablanca fielded queries on what might improve OrthoChess64, that Pritchard documents under Capablanca Chess (which became 8x10). These matters should not be for idle speculation. ''Fools rush in where Angels fear to tred.'' Hypothetically CVPage could have been built all these years around extreme caution, and anything outlandish outlawed, and still have been considered fringe -- and still be the best potential revolutionary force for change. CVP chose different course, but maybe the same material to work with resides in its depths anyway.

These 'kludge' rules are what makes chess what it is. Take out stalemate
and the beautiful endgame studies of the past are gone. Stalemate is surely
not a win since the objective was to checkmate not to capture the king.
Change this and try this - it does not work. You are making a game with
LESS not more. 
Castling is a king safety rule - that speeds up the game and makes it more
dynamic. Take it away and try it - the game is slower and not as
interesting. Shuffle chess without castling or Fischer random - it seems
people have already decided. 

Eastern variants dont have the queen- Chinese chess the king is confined
to the palace - the stalemate =win seems more logical in that context .. 

The double pawn move and en passant go hand in hand as well. 

I have actually taught kids to play chess - and they have no problem
picking up the rules in one go. If anything, its the movement of the knight
that confuses them. 

I think what is important to note is that even the smallest rule change
has significant effect. Lets call it as it is - we are making different
chess-like games. Maybe for the chess variant community this is still chess
or next chess but for everyone else - it is a different game regardless of
how chess-like it is.

The 'Mad Queen' mutation of what is 'Chess' works, but ends up adding
extra complexity to the game, which makes it harder to learn, and is a
deterent to new players.  A lot of these complexities come from what was
done with the pawns.  Because of the Mad Queen, Mad Bishop and the pawns,
we now have these additional rules that were added:
* Castling
* En Passante
* Stalemate (Came in the same time) as a draw.

These rules make things more complicated for novices, and hinder the
adopting of chess.  Take the example of Near Chess (as a reference, not
made as a self-plug here) and you can keep the mad pieces, but they don't
pick up the other complicated rules.  'Mad Queen' (Modern) chess feels
like a bunch of 'kludge' fixes to a game that went how it did, and is
needlessly complicated.

I am not sure how just saying, 'Let's add one rule tweak or two that I
PERSONALLY like' is going to end up addressing this also.  By the way, reducing the time to play (Speed/Fast/Blitz) apparently is how the chess is leaning towards addressing its issues.  That and some Chess960 also.

What is making it old, then, exactly? It would become new, I believe, from
the slightest rule change. This change should, if possible, fix some other
agreed problem than just create something random, which these
'NextChesses' seem to do. Let us speak, and formulate, in concrete terms, rather than wade in this theoretical sea.

The Mad Queen variant is not really 'wrong' or 'damaged'. It is just
simply becoming 'simplified' in the collective consciousness.

Eventually(not tomorrow), it will be superseded by another variant(just as
it superseded previous variants during its time). What that one will be is
totally conjecture at this point in time.

But allow me to conjecture(or predict). The 'next chess' could be 3D.
This is simply a logical extension of the wargame. Will it be a 3D
extrapolation of the Mad Queen variant? Or some other creature entire.

Let the argument continue(hopefully rational). Maybe we'll dig this gem
from our brains one day. ;-)

I believe that the solution to the dying Chess would not be an entirely new
 game, but something that would exactly solve the problems of Chess. Let us
determine what is wrong with Chess, not simply old.

Indeed, the prove of the variant is in the playing, as the proverb says.

And this is exactly what the Superchess endeavor is attempting. Oct 12
there will be a gathering of some 40 people that will play Superchess all
day. George might not think much of it from a design or originality point
of view, and my personal preference would go to other vaiants as well. But
this variant is being played. Many others hardly so. I think that makes a
HUGE difference...

So, far I am hearing odd little items such as '8x8 Chess will be laughed
at' presumable in the not too distant future. - Actually this is a
possibility if the human race decreases in IQ, every exercise of the mind
will be laughed at! 
And forcing chess variant designers to follow standards dictated by
someone or others - *something I as a designer will never do*, 
So how exactly did 8x8 chess evolve? BY PLAYING! 
Instead of wasting this time arguing about forcing others to do things,
why not just organize more tournaments, play more chess variants and see
what comes out of that. With enough people, people will naturally
gravitate towards a few chess variants. 
We have a great tournament going on right now in which each player has 2
favorite variants to play against the others. This has taken a backseat to
this useless discussion. Why were not all the parties involved in this
tournament? 
One thing to note: the chess playing community is very large and  not
interested in ANY chess variant at this point. Feel free to post this Next
Chess idea at any chess forum to see what response you get. Perhaps, this
post is intended for ortho chess sites - it must be - it does not concern
chess variants - as the most important support for chess variants is not
mentioned: PLAYING them! 

However, I do see some benefits to what Rich is doing - probably on the
way to an excellent categorization and possible promotion of chess
variants - both of which alone are good points for IAGO.

Fergus Duniho:
| Very Good. Zillions of Games and Game Courier both provide software 
| support for numerous variants. ChessV supports several games. Shogi, 
| Chinese Chess, and selected other variants have dedicated programs to 
| play them.

You forget to mention WinBoard and Fairy-Max!

As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now, and no do some NextChess'. Well, how is this working?

Let me answer this in three parts:

Software Support

Very Good. Zillions of Games and Game Courier both provide software support for numerous variants. ChessV supports several games. Shogi, Chinese Chess, and selected other variants have dedicated programs to play them.

Equipment Availability

Good. When David Howe and I were regularly playing Chess variants together when we both lived in the same city, we never had serious problems coming up with equipment for games. Between us, we had a good Chess variant construction set, and we were able to make pieces for games with pieces we didn't have readymade. In general, Chess variants tend to appeal to creative people, and creative people can usually come up with the equipment for the games they want to play.

Equipment becomes more of a problem if (1) you don't have the interest or creativity to make your own equipment, or (2) you are trying to organize large numbers of people to play Chess variants. Naturally, it will be easier to attract large numbers to Chess variants when you have some readymade equipment they can use. Some variants have sets available, and many other games can use the equipment from these sets. Your present solution is to make a large investment in multiple Chess variant sets whose pieces you can mix and match for different games, along with some mousepad boards you can cut up and piece together into different board shapes. For a cheaper alternative, you can print out piece images and affix them to poker chips or wooden discs.

Eventually, I expect 3D printers to be commonplace. The technology exists. I saw a Wired Science episode that showed them being used to build living organs for transplants. The same kind of technology could be used to build custom pieces from 3D patterns stored in your computer.

Player Interest

Poor. Some variants have fairly large followings and most don't. I'm sure it is also that way with card games, for which most everyone already has the equipment. Most people are simply interested in playing the same games everyone else already knows how to play. In most places around the world, it will be easy to find someone else who plays Chess, but probably next to impossible to find someone who plays your favorite variants. Naturally, the promotion of Chess variants helps, but I don't know what promotion of some kind of meta-game would do in addition to this.