Comments by maxkoval

Because the CVP is probably the only common chess variant source, I would like to think of variants being featured just as a sign of recognition, nothing more. If a game is popular enough, and/or has some weight on its own, it can be featured. With repeats being acceptable, that will be the most trivial way of managing this feature.

It is not as difficult and time-consuming as it seems to be. By doing the conversion process manually I referred to the correction of the final results. You can easily upload any image in Inkscape and then convert it to SVG automatically. Sometimes no other work in the application is required.

The usage of PNGs and GIFs for something that can be represented by vector graphics is obsolete, so I don't really understand how these graphics can be applied to something, especially in low resolution. Wikipedia cites and uses such an approach, and I think that all major chess websites switched their chess symbols to SVG.

Maybe, the cube can be the best solution as the most elementary form in 3D dimension. Pyramid is still okay though.

Speaking of dimensions, I once read a funny observation in an old chess magazine questioning why 3D pieces can make do with 2D space.

Instead, I would find it to be worth developing new and simplest possible designs that can be associated with a particular chess piece if it had no physical design before. Chess pieces are generally not art items, but rather products of industrial design that can be mass-produced, so a different approach is required. They should be simple to be made by a hobbyist, using a lathe or 3D printer, ergonomic, and distinctive. Why not include such files (which will be eventually made by someone) in every Piececlopedia article? There's no need to create a design classic, just something that can be very simple, yet different and efficient. It should be compatible with a standard Staunton-like chess set. All of these images are instantly incompatible if placed together with usual chessmen, which is also an important criterion aside from their artistic side.

In 9x9 Modern chess, they used a minister's hat for the minister (BN compound), it was simply designed as a usual chess king with a cylinder hat instead. It looked really simple and efficient and could be easily made on a lathe. In a slightly more sophisticated way, they made excellent designs for the Champion and Wizard in Omega Chess, It's sort of sad that they discontinued selling them, but with enough skill, they can be also made out of wood or be printed, although I'm not sure about the copyright issues.

I wouldn't like to underrate your effort and passion, but in my opinion, your designs don't seem to stay in one stylistic line, which makes the whole project to be of lesser aesthetical value, although conceptually it's still interesting. Many of these designs seem to be somewhat overcomplicated, not speaking of their reliability if printed. The pieces should be comfortable to be touched by hand, after all, so ergonomics is a thing here. As a guy who played with hundreds of chess sets during my life, I can speak that a badly designed chess set can ruin the whole experience to the extent that even an interesting game will fully lose its appeal. If the project is actually printed, I doubt if a player can fully enjoy a game played with such chessmen.

I would suggest that leaping pieces, such as the knight would get just their heads, without other elements, following the existing tradition. All other ones must be made of simple geometric shapes, like pawn, rook, etc. Minor details, such as a cut in a bishop's head or rook's bricks are acceptable if they look balanced. There are endless combinations, and they are very simple to be made.

A piece's basement must be noticeably larger than its middle or upper part. Both for stability and aesthetical reasons, a thing ignored by many people who design chess sets.

I generally do not like Staunton design. To me the pieces in it often look disproportional, but they all have stable and large basements.

Chess is a war game. It is already not comfortable for me that there are so many animal chessmen, which make many variants to be somewhat childish, at least in my perception. Why not use names for military ranks, tools, or anything of this sort? But a chess piece, named after furniture is something that can hardly be understood.

I always preferred plastic to wood while playing chess. But when a chess piece can be easily made out of wood without manually carving anything excluding simple parts, it seems to be a strong advantage.

In today's world of AI, it is simpler than ever to design something like a chess piece. I believe that after about a couple of years we will be able to get a complete set of 3d models for any chess variant by just describing how we would like it to be.

I am sorry for my rant on the subject, don't really take it seriously.

I think that maybe because the page consists of too much text, it is difficult to review it and be sure that the content of it actually works.

I personally would prefer to see more simple games, such as the L-game, or something that is governed by an efficient idea, like Perfect chess, which is the best variant in my opinion that incorporates piece compounds. This world is already more complicated than it should actually be.

As it was noted, I think that probably the best way to explore this feature is to include little-known and original games for further discussion and possible improvement, maybe alongside common CVs. For example, Chess on a soccer ball by David Cannon.

@Rechefiltr is Fire, it would be interesting, but is there a need to remake it?