Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The idea of an infinite dimension on the board is interesting in my opinion.

That may be, but that is not what is described here.

Ridiculous means deserving mockery or being absurd. It is none of them.

Even the author disgrees with you.  The page is entitled "Chess On A Ridiculously Long Board".

The game we have here is not good as only Rooks and Queens can cross it

I would consider that a pretty significant problem.  I agree with Fergus' conclusion.  There are already at least two viable infinte variants on this site, and there may be room for the invention of others, but this page - as it stands - will not be published.

Well, I disagree. The idea of an infinite dimension on the board is interesting in my opinion. Ridiculous means deserving mockery or being absurd. It is none of them. I'm not attached on the way the author defines the infinity which is possibly arguable. I prefer imagining the board having an infinite even number of rows like if it had a sort of black-hole-river in the middle. The game we have here is not good as only Rooks and Queens can cross it, but I guess some other game could be imagined on this conceptual board and I then this board has nothing ridiculous.

A more interesting debate would be to discuss of how many definite rows would be necessary to approach the same topological nature than an infinite number of rows. I don't know if I'm clear. I mean, maybe a board of 20 or 30 rows is enough. It probably depends on the number of columns, probably on the number of pieces able to cross the "infinity" also. I wonder.

Finally why being very long is ridiculous? Weird maybe, but not ridiculous.

Is there any practical difference between this game with 1000 ranks and with 100,000 ranks?  How about a million ranks?  If the answer is "no", then defining it in this way is ridiculous.  I think this submission is satire.

As remarked by Ben, after "2", all primes are odd. By definition. So the number of rows had to be "big prime"+/-1.

Saying, on this place, that games with fairy pieces are not well playable is a bit surprising. I guess the author speaks of things he doesn't know and I encourage him to try, it will only be a matter of choice for him to pick one variant.

Finally why being very long is ridiculous? Weird maybe, but not ridiculous. Infinite Long Board would be a better title. Sure this game is not physically playable, but would it be playable by computers, I wonder?

Unlike thousands of other variants, especially with fairy pieces, Chess On A Ridiculously Long Board is actually more understandable and playable for the public than those weird novelties, since most of the chessplayers already know the rules.

Due to its large size, it is unplayable on a human scale. So, I do not believe for a second that it would be more playable for the public than games with fairy pieces or other weird novelties. Please limit your contributions to playable variants.

I enjoy variants whose only point is to explore some weird idea, but I don't think this brings enough to the table to publish. Only rooks and queens can cross the board (without adding some rules for facilitating automatic advancement of other pieces) and will get slaughtered by the opponent's remaining army.

I think I've seen a similar variant where the space between armies is actually infinite, but I can't immediately find it, and I don't know if there was a serious attempt at making it playable?

Since large primes are all odd, you're guaranteed to need an additional row to get the square coloring you're after.