Enter Your Reply

Hello Fergus.  I think it would be useful to clarify a bit of what I was
speaking about here:
1. My use of 'art' is meant to be in contrast to that of 'science'.  In
one sense 'art' and 'craft' were put next to each other.  You can take
what I said to speak about something created that can be admired for its
quality and stand alone.
2. While I can understand and appreciate designer's works standing alone,
as a fine piece of work, I am also of the belief games are designed to be
played, and not just put in some museum somewhere.  Because of this, I
believe there needs to be a dialog between the designer and players of
games, to make sure what comes about is played.  We can continue to follow
the old path of 'monkeys at the typewriter' spitting out more and more
works, and hope one sticks, with each game is its own and end of
discussion.  But I believe for a game to grow, it needs a community of
players behind it.  To this end, the community needs to feel as they are
part owners over the game, and have input.  You can see examples of this
involvement in 'crowdsourcing':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing

Part of the reason for FIDE Chess being what it is, is that a community
adopted the game, and how it developed wasn't from one person, but a
community that played it and codified the rules.  I know designers wish
they could create stand-alone games that would get the same degree of
reverence FIDE Chess has.  But I believe, unless a community feels the game
is their game, it isn't going to happen.
3. As for the effectiveness of the stand-alone game method, I can refer to
what you wrote in the original NextChess thread goes into the problems we
face with the current approach:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=NextChess
    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...:
Equipment Availability
Good. 

My comment: Availability I would rate actually as poor.  One can
theoretically make their own equipment for everything.  However, that
doesn't mean that equipment is readily available.  Most games are given as
gifts to other people. If giving gifts is the criterion of availability,
how exactly can we rate equipment availability as good?  Take the example
of Games Magazine in its Games 100 lists.  They list chess variants, and
tell people about Grand Chess.  People get interested.  Ok, now where do
they get the board and pieces?  They don't.  They have to make them.

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.
4. We have some practical reasons to get NextChess to function.  We need to
have it so that we can make it commercially viable to supply equipment for.
 Despite people saying 'Let's just be digital' such doesn't have the
same degree of accessibility through physical equipment to have things take
off.  And unlike cardgames, we DON'T have equipment readily available at
all.  Like, how about going out and getting a 10x10 chess board in North
America?  Sorry, not easily doable.