Single Comment

This is one of Charles Daniel's odd little proposals, re-applying an old method, qualifying within the Next Chess group. It's a small idea if it ever gets outside attention and potentially important. The difficulty is that with Mutators and slight piece changes, different designers' recommendations for serious reform add up to hundreds. They range from Lasker's switching N&B, to Capablanca's replacing King's Bishop with Carrera piece, to Neto's list of Mutators, to Betza's like Black Ghost to Quintanilla's generalized Switching. Taken two at a time instead of one at a time, there are millions of ways to go. Small-size 64 squares are likely doomed for the dust-bin of history. There is the obvious growing consensus on that case. Otherwise here, why would a good player like Daniels go the trouble of making this particular near-Chess? None of the combinations of changes, from castling to scoring or anything else, whether within Random schema or not, seem satisfactory to save little 64 squares. European Shatranj lasted 500 years and so did Mad Queen.