Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Apr 1, 2018 12:08 AM UTC:
[EDIT: this was posted before I saw Kevin's reply]
I agree that "Next Chess" is a bad name for the reasons you enumerate. Not to get too far off-track, but I do not even believe in the idea that there will ever be a "next chess." Our society is becoming increasingly complicated and specialized. There is only a "Chess" of such stature because it evolved in a different time. Now there are thousands of chess variants, thousands of other types of board games (even if you only count commercial games), to say nothing of video games and virtual reality. Very few kids play Chess anymore. Even in China, where access to technology is more limited and people tend to be more traditional, I'm told that many fewer children are playing Xiangqi.
I like the idea of allowing our members an opportunity to have a Recognized variant. I'm not even sure they would need to be "prolific" inventors. Obviously there must be some criteria - everyone can't have a Recognized variant - but, as an example, I think Falcon Chess should definitely make the cut despite the fact that George Duke is not a prolific inventor. Actually, I'm not sure the number of games invented should be particularly importnat. As a counter-example, Charles Gilman is THE most prolific inventor, but his games are basically not played at all, not even by him. I'm thinking something more like this: an inventor that can show that total play of all his or her games, put together, passes some threshold, gets to have a Recognized variant. Also, I think the "Acclaimed" category is perfect for this - I see no need to create yet another category, provided we add the additional restriction that the invetor can pick his or her favorite game, but only from only those that have some demonstrated popularity. No one should object to you picking Gross Chess, Eurasian Chess, or even a less popular game like KMS. But if you wanted to pick, for example, Voidrider Chess, it would be much more of a stretch to call that game "Acclaimed."
To switch gears, I'm inclined to add Capablanca to the Vintage category. Any objections?
[EDIT: this was posted before I saw Kevin's reply]
I agree that "Next Chess" is a bad name for the reasons you enumerate. Not to get too far off-track, but I do not even believe in the idea that there will ever be a "next chess." Our society is becoming increasingly complicated and specialized. There is only a "Chess" of such stature because it evolved in a different time. Now there are thousands of chess variants, thousands of other types of board games (even if you only count commercial games), to say nothing of video games and virtual reality. Very few kids play Chess anymore. Even in China, where access to technology is more limited and people tend to be more traditional, I'm told that many fewer children are playing Xiangqi.
I like the idea of allowing our members an opportunity to have a Recognized variant. I'm not even sure they would need to be "prolific" inventors. Obviously there must be some criteria - everyone can't have a Recognized variant - but, as an example, I think Falcon Chess should definitely make the cut despite the fact that George Duke is not a prolific inventor. Actually, I'm not sure the number of games invented should be particularly importnat. As a counter-example, Charles Gilman is THE most prolific inventor, but his games are basically not played at all, not even by him. I'm thinking something more like this: an inventor that can show that total play of all his or her games, put together, passes some threshold, gets to have a Recognized variant. Also, I think the "Acclaimed" category is perfect for this - I see no need to create yet another category, provided we add the additional restriction that the invetor can pick his or her favorite game, but only from only those that have some demonstrated popularity. No one should object to you picking Gross Chess, Eurasian Chess, or even a less popular game like KMS. But if you wanted to pick, for example, Voidrider Chess, it would be much more of a stretch to call that game "Acclaimed."
To switch gears, I'm inclined to add Capablanca to the Vintage category. Any objections?