Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

It's good now,

I was having that problem yesterday with Firefox on Windows 10, and I fixed it by changing the CSS. I just checked Safari on my iPad, and it's not having that problem. If you are still having that problem, the old CSS may still be cached in your browser.

Something is wrong in the Featured Games code. Using Safari on iPad, everything between the banner and the affiliate-link area is blank.

I have added an automated notice to each Featured Game.

I've removed the manual Recognized Variants banners from the tops of the Recognized Variants. In doing so, I learned that some of them never had the text identifying them as Recognized Variants.  So, it will be better to include automated text that shows up if the right column in the database is checked. I've also started doing grep searches to find and remove other links to rindex.html.

I think the next step will be to dismantle the Recognized Chess Variants by removing the manual and menu links to it. I can then replace them with automated links to a list of the Featured Games. So pages would go from mentioning that a game is a Recognized Variant to mentioning that it is a Featured Game. On pages for games that are not featured, I could add a link to a random featured game with mention of the Featured Games or to something about Favorited Games, so that each gets some additional exposure.

Seeing that Omega Chess wasn't listed in the Featured Games, I double checked that it was on the Recognized Variants page. When I looked it up in the database, the Link page was marked as Recognized and Primary. I switched these to the Game page, so that it shows up in the Featured Games listing.

I'm now looking into omissions. I have searched the database for Recognized Variants that are not Primary Items. I am adding those that meet other criteria. Based on this, I have added Janggi.

I have just changed the text in queryinc.php to Featured Pages or to Featured Games when the Game type is selected. I am weeding through the currently featured games. I am checking how many members have favorited a game, its average rating and how many ratings it has, how popular it is on Game Courier, and whether it has a chapter in Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants or Gollon's Chess Variations. For now, I'll continue to feature games that meet one of these criteria. But I will list below some games that just scrape by and might be worth dropping from being featured:

• Avalanche Chess is mentioned in PCV, but it hasn't proven popular on the CVP.
• Capablanca Random Chess has a few positive reviews, though most don't actually mention the game. It is favorited by one member.
• Dragon Chess by Gary Gygax is favorited by four members.
• Janus Chess is favorited by five people.
• Los Alamos Chess is favorited by one member. It has some positive reviews, but two are anonymous. I know it is of historical interest.
• Magnetic Chess is favorited by two people, and Pritchard has a chapter on it in PCV.
• Minishogi is favorited by four people.
• Odin's Rune Chess has six excellent reviews and a good one, but it is the favorite of only one person, and it is fairly unpopular on Game Courier.
• Raumschach is favorited by three people, and I believe Dickins mentions it in A Guide to Fairy Chess
• Star Trek Tridimensional Chess is favorited by one person and has only two reviews, but it is very well known, and expensive sets are sold for it.

The following games do not meet any of the criteria above and are being unfeatured for now:

• Byzantine Chess
• Chess with Batteries has one review and is favorited by one person. It is not played on Game Courier.
• Countdown
• Crazy 38's is favorited by one person and has two good reviews. The one person who favorited it says in his review that he has not played it.
• Diamond Chess
• Flip Chess and Flip Shogi are favorited by one person, have no reviews, and are unplayed on Game Courier.
• Pocket Knight
• TenCubed Chess is favorited by only two people and is fairly unpopular on Game Courier.

OK, so we rename the 'primary items' to 'featured pages', and probably not much else will change. We have to update the list a bit, but we would have to do that anyway.

I suppose the featured pages serve two purposes:

• Make it on average easier for visitors of the website to find what they are looking for.
• Draw attention to pages 'we' think they should see, but which they never would look for.

I agree that all commercial variants deserve this status, so we should add Seirawan Chess, Musketeer Chess and Paco Shako. I also think that pages that provide 'infra-structural support' for this website, such as the Checkmating Applet or the Interactive Diagram wizzard should be mentioned there.

Calling 'Primary Items' as 'Featured Pages' instead might allow for including a historic variant like (2 player) Chaturanga more smoothly (otherwise we worry about not being too sure of the rules to use, besides that it so closely resembles Shatranj). Unless, the limit on the 'Featured Pages' is set to a rigid unchanging number that may be regretted as being too low later on, and then some items might need to be axed as featured ones to make room for ones thought better included. I'm in favour of including the commercial variants, notably Seirawan Chess in particular (as I wrote in the past), though again a limit just might be reached very quickly. I'd point out that there are many 1- or 2-letter alphabetical sub-indicies in the Main Alphabetical Index, to liberally sprinkle a generously large number (or limit) of Featured Pages over.

I now would assume, that if this concept of Featured Pages goes ahead, only CVP editor(s) in future would be the ones to pick the Featured Pages, and CVP  (possibly by explicit statement) would not encourage nomination of any currently excluded items by non-editors, though at least people can still express by comments whether they agree with a chosen item being included. If so, a look now and then at the Favourites list, or the Top 50 Game Courier list, for example, might make for a couple of more resources editors can use when in future picking Featured Pages or even the Featured Games (the formerly Recognized Variants concept, which is declared discontinued).

The reason I want to use the word "Featured" is that it has a precise, concrete meaning. Something would be featured if we feature it, and it wouldn't be featured if we don't. In contrast, calling something "Recognized" or "Primary" suggests some external quality. The idea behind the Recognized Variants is to identify those that have won or merit some kind of recognition. This can lead to disagreement or uncertainty over which variants should be considered recognized. But the idea of Featured Games isn't tied to some nebulous external standard. We could feature or unfeature games for different reasons, permanently featuring some games, and temporarily featuring others. Since it's main purpose would be to draw attention to some pages in search results, I agree that it should not be broken into categories. This purpose would also put a practical limit on how many pages should be featured.

Well, I don't care whether items are called 'primary', 'featured' or 'highlights'. It is a very good idea that some of the more important items in the index for a certain 2-letter combination go in front, though, as sometimes the lists are quite long. I don't think it would be a good idea to split the items that are thus favored into several categories

That's something that David Howe instituted so that the most important pages would be at the top of the list when listing search results. I think he largely included the Recognized Variants, though some other things are also included. It might be a good idea to replace Recognized Variants and Primary Items with Featured Games and Featured Pages, the former being a subset of the latter. Featured pages would be ones that we want to draw greater attention to or that we expect users would be looking for more. These could include links to games that enough of us think highly of, links to well-known or popular games, and links to commercially available commercial games. These could be featured at the top of search results, as Primary Items are, but referred to as Featured Pages instead. Also, they could be a bit more dynamic than Recognized Variants, meaning we could drop something from the Featured Pages, such as a commercial game no longer being made, or a game that has been reevaluated.

I cannot seem to find a policy statement on what it takes for a chess variant or other item to be selected by editor(s) to be a 'Primary Item' in the CVP 'Main Alphabetical Index'. Usually, but not always, such Primary Items are also 'Recognized Variants'.

It would also be good to know if CVP editor(s) welcome feedback or nominations by non-editors for what might become a Primary Item. Something being a Primary Item certainly gives it a certain amount of extra attention and/or distinction.

I have a clear conflict of interest here. 

That hits the head on the nail. Conflict of interest is the main reason the Recognized Chess Variants project has been discontinued. This site is run by Chess variant inventors, and as inventors, we all want recognition for our own variants. But to do something like the Recognized Chess Variants project requires impartiality and the willingness to not use it to promote our own pet projects. The Favorites system works differently. Inventors may favorite their own games, but it's mainly how other people vote that determines whether a game rises to the top of the list. Prolific inventors are even encouraged to use this as a tool for designating their own favorites among their own games, because this is relevant information. I have not favorited all of my games, because I think it is more relevant for people to know which of my games are my personal favorites than it is for me to promote all my games equally. Even though I have invented my own games, I am detached enough from them that I can be critical of them and favor some over others. But I am not so detached from my games that I am uninterested in promoting any of them. Instead of demanding impartiality, the Favorites system allows partiality but minimizes its effect. This encourages more participation, and it provides a more accurate reading on how much recognition individual games actually have.

@Zied & Raphael:

If you read back through the comments on this topic, you will see that we have had an intense discussion in 2018 on what the future of the 'Recognized' label should be. At that time we corrected some obvious omissions of variants that are played by millions even today (Jangi, Makruk), or in their time dominated the chess scene (Shatranj, Chu Shogi). At that time a sort of concensus arose that it could be discontinued, as the categories for which novel variants could qualify would just duplicate the 'favorites' list.

Is the fact that the recognised variants section wasn't updated from 2006 means that the administrators of chessvariants haven't found any new / recent variant worth to be added ?

No, it means that this project has been discontinued. This has nothing to do with the quality of Chess variants coming out since its discontinuation. It has been replaced with allowing members to designate their favorite Chess variants. This gives everyone who cares to participate an equal voice, which is more democratic than letting editors come up with a list. At present, 3 people have favorited Musketeer Chess.

Hi, thank you for your comment.

Raphael mentioned his comment to me. Loving / Preferences are individual choices.

I have a clear conflict of interest here. 

Is the fact that the recognised variants section wasn't updated from 2006 means that the administrators of chessvariants haven't found any new / recent variant worth to be added ?

Just to mention that recently, there was many things new concerning Musketeer Chess: Jocly website went down so your website, mine and HG Muller work are the only websites where it's possible to play this variant.

Many engine programmers become to have growing interest in it. The major one is for sure Stockfish that recently released Musketeer Stockfish. There are a total of 6 Programmers that already made engines for Musketeer Chess, which is not an easy variant to program due to the rules that concern the Piece selection and the "Gating Selection" = squares where the pieces will enter the game.

This growing interest is for sure for me a good thing. The majority of these programmers tried to play the game and loved it. 

Have you an idea if there are other variants that are currently commercial ?

I runned tens of thousands of engine games and played myself hundreds. 

My conclusions based on these tests are as follows: The game seems to be balanced as there are almost equal winning chances comparing black and white chances, and the draw percentage is low (less than 8%). Seirawan Chess that Inspired Musketeer Chess favors clearly White for example.

Thanks again for your comment: PS working on a wiki page and i mentioned your Game Courier in it. A really nice tool.

I hope also that Lichess will add it to their server.

Musketeer Chess is very young, and nothing has been added to this list since 2006. It has been replaced by the more democratic practice of letting users favorite games. You may play Musketeer Chess on this site with Game Courier.

Hi

My interest for chess variants is growing since i retired from the army two years ago. This website is outstanding and inspiring. I met with some funs of chess variants. A special mention to a certain Medical Doctor working in Paris who's name is Dr Zied Haddad and who's a nice and smart man. He invented Musketeer Chess and i got the chance to play with him a few games and he shared with me his great passion for chess and chess variants and why he got motivation to invent and spend much time and more in inventing chess variants and designing and creating new pieces.

I must say that Musketeer Chess is for me among the best variants (with Seirawan chess and a new variant named Shogun). This post is about recognized chess variants. I wonder why Musketeer Chess isn't among these variants.

Currently it's almost the only commercial chess variant i know. It offers many different fairy pieces that help play on the board (I prefer playing on the board even though with the current pandemics the only person I can play chess or chess variants with is myself). These pieces are also very interesting esthetically and I regularly use them to customise the classic chess set. My grandson loves for example when I replace the Rook with the Spider or the Fortress (the Rook is supposed to be more valuable in terms of relative strength than the Knight or Bishop, but it is usually much smaller in size than these pieces). I also love to use the Unicorns (either replacing the knights using unicorns, or just customising my pieces). When using unicorns instead of the Knights the games are very tactical and very short.

How it's possible to add musketeer chess to the list of recognised chess variants? 

I also wanted to praise the website of the inventor, nice looking, easy to use and with many free tools like the Board Painter tool allowing to build Diagrams for many chess variants.

Assuming that, by the passage of time since my last post on the subject, Seirawan Chess is not yet worthy to be placed on the Recognized Chess Variants list, I'd now suggest it might at least be worthy to be given 'Primary Item' status, i.e. in the CVP Main Alphabetical Index, under indicies 'Se' and 'S'.

I'd like to nominate Seirawan Chess for the Popular category (I'm hoping we can squeeze at least this one entry onto the list of Recognized Variants, after something of a long lull).

I think the wiki on this variant gives the idea here and there that it has become rather popular since its invention over 10 years ago. Notably, mentioned are a number of websites devoted to it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seirawan_chess

I find this variant to be worth rating as Excellent, if only since it seems to me to be at least as good as Capablanca Chess, while remaining on an 8x8 board as used for chess.

I'm now significantly better liking the choices as a whole for the listed games on the Recognized Chess Variants index page. Have you thought more about commenting on any of the relatively recent comments from several people posting in this thread, Greg?

No objection having been raised, Capablanca's Chess is now Recognized in the Vintage category.

@ Greg:

About 10 days ago you posted you were thinking of adding Capablanca Chess to the Vintage category of Recognized Chess Variants. Has there been any objection to that specifically, and, if not, is the addition to be soon?

I think Courier Chess became popular in the time that Shatranj was the dominant form of Chess. And I don't think it is more boring that Shatranj; the Commoner and Bishop are more interesting pieces than the Ferz and Alfil. In addition, the promotion rules seem to be completely unknown, and we just assume it was the same as in Shatranj. Which is about the most boring promotion rule you can imagine. If promotion was to Commoner, or to the piece starting in the file (not unheard of: Grant Acedrex had that rule), it would make the game far more interesting. And another plausible rule is promotion to any captured piece.

Fwiw, I personally haven't found Courier Chess always too boring to enjoy playing it, though I'm only in the middle of playing my second game of it now. The webpage for this game points out it was vogue in a region of Germany for many years (longer than the arguably more exciting Courier-Spiel was), so that may count for something, given that it wasn't too many centuries ago. Somewhere I read that the slower pace of the game may have appealed to more women in its day than faster-paced variant(s) that came later, too.

[edit: Note: I've edited my previous post in this thread a bit.]

@ H.G.:

The criteria CVP members use to choose their favourites on the CVP Favorites List is unknowable, especially given that more than one person is doing the selecting. Presumably a game is selected more often than not due to being enjoyable to play for that person, though some games on the list do not have Game Courier presets yet, I would note. I recall at one point (as now) the recommended (official!?) criteria for choosing a favourite variant was to select just a variant you actually play, but in practice it seemed to me CVP members didn't always follow that criteria.

Hence naturally any criteria Recognized Chess Variants officially ever uses would not ever knowably be always 'different' from that of the Favorites List (at least unofficially, or as far as CVP members are concerned), if you happened to think of 'different' in that sense. If as I think you may have meant (too or instead) by 'different', the criteria for Recognized Chess Variants officially should be changed, or at least be made more clear, yes I think we're all trying to help the editors decide on that issue with our discussions here, unless some of us have decisively given up on the idea of this list as useless. I'd note that though editor(s) made the final screening, CVP members originally nominated by ballot (maybe later sometimes by a formal nomination process) at least some of the variant(s) to be Recognized (I don't know how frequently members gave input though, e.g. in the case of something merely significant rather than enjoyable, like Shatranj).

I would note that at least Fergus' stated criteria for each Recognized Chess Variant 'Category' seem clear-cut enough, in most if not all cases. However, the original list of Recognized Chess Variants was not organized into categories this way, and as far as I know the re-organizing of a lot of the (earlier) admitted Recognized Chess Variants into these Categories (along with deciding that they met the stated criteria of the categories they were placed in) was done solely by Fergus.

@Fergus Duniho and @Greg Strong: Does your evaluation of Courier Chess include the 19th-century Kurierspiel described here on CVP?

I remember a while ago, maybe two weeks, having seen a list with how many times each game has been played, but now I'm not sure where. That one is an interesting one to mention. Anyone know where to find it? Even there there are some factors as larger board games are normal to be played rarer as they take more time to complete. But if we take this into acoount is a very good list :)!

Well, I would say that editors who claim a game is great for playing while almost no one on this site wants to play it, are just plain wrong, rather than 'more knowledgeable'. It seems to me that a distinction 'only CVP editors like this' is not useful to anyone except the editors, and isn't really worth publishing.

To provide any added value for the general reader, the criteria according to which the variants in the list have been judged must officially be different.

I'd suggest again that it may be important that the Recognized Chess Variants list choices are screened by knowlegable editor(s), while the favorites list choices are not. That could make for an important difference in quality between the two lists, unless it can be argued that CVP members collectively know what makes a significant variant at least as well as editor(s). The Favorites list at the least might serve those looking for yet another opinion, perhaps as given mainly by those who primary play variants, so that list seems to have a right to exist, too.

P.S.: You could do worse than marrying an Australopithicus. :)

Well, what was written was written before the 'favorites' concept had been implemented. And now that the latter has been implemented, what was written might not make much sense anymore. We definitely don't need a second program that does in a less transparent way what we already have in the 'favorites'.

That being said, 'significant' is indeed something different from 'recommended'. Since all forms of Chess are thought to be drived from Shatranj, I would think that Shatranj is the most significant of all. Just like the Australopithicus is a very significant hominid, even though I would not want to be married to one.

Furthermore, "what people on this site consider significant" is not at all the same as "what people consider significant on this site". That anything posted here reflects what we feel should be self-evident: we are the ones posting it.

The title sentence for the index page may reveal what the (original?) editor(s) felt most clearly summed up what "Recognized" Chess Variants were meant to be:

Index page listing the variants we feel are most significant

As far as what the word 'significant' means, there may be more room for flexibility, e.g. to include the various possible definitions of what the word 'recognized' means as far as the variants chosen to be listed. Courier Chess, Tamerlane Chess and Shatranj certainly seem 'significant', and are historical variants besides, even if not always recommendable to be played. Perhaps 'Most (or Very) Significant Chess Variants' would be the best title of all, though the practical drawbacks of making such a change have been pointed out by Greg.

I'm fine with the program of having contests for recognized variant of the month staying obsolete, since keeping that up may have taken a lot of effort. Making occasional (if not monthly) amendments to the 'Recognized Chess Variants' list, on the other hand, would seem to take far less effort on the part of editor(s) - I'd prefer a panel do it, but so far just one editor (Greg) seems to have handled some amendments to the list without generating much fuss about the actual changes made.

Well, my stance from the beginning is that there is room, next to the favorites, for a listing of variants that now or at some earlier point in history have been successful, widely known and influential. Shatranj and Courier definitely belong on such a list, no matter how boring they are to play.

Another listing (next to the favorites) of variants the community on this website recommends for playing, seems redundant. If that is the idea of this 'recognized' title, than Fergus' original assessment that this is an obsolete program, not worth reviving, would hit the nail spot on.

Yeah, Courier Chess is pretty awful.

Now that I've attempted to play Courier Chess, I am definitely in favor of removing it. It is just about the worst, most boring variant I have ever played. Some of the historic variants have already been mentioned on The History of Chess Variants page. This page will probably do for listing historically noteworthy variants, and historically noteworthy games that haven't been mentioned on it yet might be added.

I think my quote and your quote are 100% compatible.  H.G.'s quote concerns what he feels the page should be, not what it is.  And Kevin's quote was a single sentense from is assertion that the Famous category should be ranked above the Acclaimed category.  I don't think it sums up Kevin's understanding of this page given all he has written on the subject.  So I don't think you've demonstrated any confusion, although there still could be.

And I'm fine with axing the Famous category.  Shatranj is the only one I would be hesitant to lose, but perhaps we could make a new page for historically noteworthy variants, such as Shatranj and Tamerlane.  Heck, I think we could move Courier Chess off the Recognized page and onto that page as well.

Because he says 'literally' I don't think there was any confusion in Kevin's mind that 'recognized' in the context we use it doe not mean 'they know what it is when the see it'.

It seems to me that 'recommended' would just duplicate the functionality of 'favorites'.

I don't think the term 'recognized' could cause any confusion

We should not make any such assumption until we look at how people understand the term.

Kevin Pacey has said, "most or all of these Famous variants are more or less literally 'recognized' (by mere mention) by the whole chess variants world."

You have said, "The way I see it is that the 'recognized' concept should mean 'embraced by the World.'"

Greg Strong has said, "These are not variants recognized by the world at large, they are variants called out for recognition by us - the CVP community."

I have said on this page, "A recognized variant is one that we have selected, either by ballot or editorial decision, as one that is worth trying out, or at least worth knowing about."

Since these do not all express the same understanding of what is meant, it appears that someone is confused.

and I don;t think it is a good idea to change it. Certainly not into 'recommended'. I would never recommend Shatranj...

In case you missed it, I was recommending removing Shatranj from the list. As long as we do that, Shatranj wouldn't continue to be an objection to renaming Recognized variants to the less confusing Recommended variants.

I personally do not think changing the name would be an improvement.  These are not variants recognized by the world at large, they are variants called out for recognition by us - the CVP community.  I never found that to be unclear, but the text of this page needs to be updated anyway, so it could certainly be made clear.  And even if "Recommended" was considered slightly better, I still wouldn't be in favor of the change because (A) it has been the 'Recognized' variants page for probably 20 years and (B) it would be a significant amount of work to make the change - editing the HTML of dozens of game pages plus tracking down all the places in the PHP code where items with the Recognized flag triggers display of the 'Recognized' text.  And we'd either need to change the name of the column in the SQL table, and deal with all the ramificaitons of that, or else live with that discontinuity probably forever.

I am certainly in favor of some changes to the game list, and soon I will weigh in a little more on the ideas posted recently.  But if we are going to put in significant effort, I think there are other things on the site where our time could be better spent.

I don't think the term 'recognized' could cause any confusion, and I don;t think it is a good idea to change it. Certainly not into 'recommended'. I would never recommend Shatranj...

For what is worth I agree witt the term recomended Fergus.

I didn't start the Recognized variant list, and "Recognized" might be the wrong word to convey what is intended. In a broad sense, something is recognized if enough people would know what it is. In a narrower sense, something is recognized for having some particular quality. When awards are given for recognition of something, it isn't simply for being widely known. It might be appropriate to replace the Recognized variants with Recommended variants if the word "recognized" is causing confusion.

Testing ability to update comment after modifying code.

Except most or all of these Famous variants are more or less literally 'recognized' (by mere mention) by the whole chess variants world, I'd guess. At least Shatranj and Tamerlane Chess have been played on Game Courier many times, too. I also recall earlier H.G. specifically mentioned Shatranj as a must-know for those at all into CVs.

By famous, I actually mean merely famous. Some variants are famous for reasons other than popularity or quality. Shatranj was played for a long time without competition from better variants, and it is a seminal game in the history of Chess. Chaturanga for Four Players is a historic variant that some people have claimed is the original form of Chess. Tamerlane Chess is a well-known historic variant. Los Alamos Chess is notable for being the first Chess variant played by a computer, though this is due to Chess being too complicated for early computers, not to any special appeal of the game for human players. Dragonchess is widely known among D&D players, because it was created by the inventor of D&D and published in Dragon magazine, which many D&D players subscribed to, but I expect very few of them began playing the game. Star Trek Tridimensional Chess is widely known to Star Trek fans, and its unique design and the popularity of Star Trek have made it emblematic of Chess variants in general, yet very few people who know of the game actually play it. All-in-all, I think we could remove every game in this category from the Recognized variants list without taking away anything important from it.

I like the category tier system for the Recognized Variants that you created, Fergus, although I'm not clear on why just (or at all) the 'Famous' category variants are presented in more (and individual) detail, nor am I clear on why it's considered a tier below Accaimed, in terms of prestige. I'd have the Famous above the Acclaimed variants, except if detailed treatment of Famous variants looked nicer for the list of Recognized Variants as a whole, if Famous variants was to be the last tier just due to that treatment being reserved only for it. I'm thinking of the part describing Famous variants that reads "...you may be more likely to find someone who already knows how to play the game...", which sounds to me like such variants actually are popular to some extent, if not time-tested as well, and these are given as the main measures of prestige for a given tier ("The main factors that differentiate the tiers are time-testedness and popularity.").

There were originally no categories, and at some point, I organized them into categories. Most of the recognized variants were added before I did this.

I've just looked at all the chess variants currently in the Acclaimed category, and curiously all arguably to at least some small extent (i.e. the pawn rules for McCooey's Hexagonal Chess, in the most problematical case) might satisfy H.G.'s general description of what entrants to a Ground-Breaking category might be like (as well as the example variants that he suggested). Maybe in the past the editor(s) generally saw things his way when they made their selections, when it came to admitting variants into the Acclaimed category, as it is currently named.

I'd note that as far as the chess variants world goes, a lot of inventors and experts on chess variants, if not those who primarily just play variants, have at some time or another made their way to The Chess Variant Pages, which also generally seems to be a (if not The) major chess variant website for the whole world. Hence it might be argued that this website does more or less speak for the whole chess variants world. :)

At this point it might be worth recapping/revisiting something from the index page, in case we wish to revise it:

"What is a Recognized Variant?

When you come to this site, you will find hundreds of Chess variants to choose from. But with so many, how do you tell the dross from the gold? How can you be sure to find one that you'll really like? We began the Recognized Chess Variants section to help you find something you'll like without much fuss and bother. A recognized variant is one that we have selected, either by ballot or editorial decision, as one that is worth trying out, or at least worth knowing about. We don't guarantee that the recognized variants are the best of the best. You may well find that the games that become your favorites have never been recognized here. But what we can say of these selections is that they tend to be time-tested, popular, critically acclaimed, or at least of some significant interest. By starting with some of the games here, you are likely to find something that you really like; and once you begin to form your own preferences, it will be easier to decide what to try next."

About the next chess part, maybe with good reason my 2 apothecaries seem to be rather forgotten, even if they were designed with that in mind. The good reason part stems from the fact that they are quite "crazy". And they probably have issues especially Apothecary 2. Anyway I don't see a reason to appreciate your own games. It is way subjective anyway. I obviously like my apothecaries quite a bit. I design them with my taste in mind whether I like it or not. I'm not sure why I'd comment on this besides the fact that I cannot se any reason. But for the plenty of math aficionados here please remember that via the Godel's incompleteness theorems mathematics teaches us that self-referential is at best ambiguous. I'm not saying inventors should not try to promote. They very much should. I do, too :)! On the other hand a most played here category is a very good idea and should overlap with everything else. Also maybe some balancing could be employed to compensate for game length because a tenjiku shogi game should worth more than say a chu shogi game and the later more than an omega chess game. This is all I have to say. Also of topic I really need to get to the rest of my apothecary series (check my personal information), because I had promised and got lazy. Thanks for listening guys :)!

The way I see it is that the 'recognized' concept should mean "embraced by the World".  I don't think it is a good idea to 'pollute' that by maintaining a category that only requires the game to be appreciated on this website.

There might very well be room for distinguishing games that have some special merit according to the community on this website, in addition to the favorites (which have as only disadvantage that it is not very clear, and in practice probably quite inhomogeneous, by what aspect they are judged). But I would prefer that to be independent of the 'recognized' title.

E.g. we could have an 'Ground-Breaking' award for variants that incorporate some innovative idea that works especially well. I am thinking of multi-path pieces in Falcon Chess, the sliding royal in Caissa Brittanica, total asymmetry in Spartan Chess. Variants that stick out from the "different board size, differently moving sliders and leapers" crowd.

Still off-topic (briefly, I hope) my chess club in Ottawa has a large proportion of junior players, as does Canada's National Chess Federation (the former perhaps due to a lot of local chess teachers and interested parents, the latter due to a policy perhaps more geared to youth chess for some time now). In both cases, there's a high proportion of Chinese and Russian kids, at least nationally going by the names. Maybe Canada bucks the trend though.

Chess is an established great game, not easy to overtake as yet. Herdlike, people generally want to play or do the one true classical thing that everyone else seems to, it seems. On a website I once visited chess variants only were played about 2% of the time for many years, half of that bughouse and a quarter of that crazyhouse. One thing chess has going for it over shogi is simply the pretty physical piece figurines, a form of instant advertising for the game that works all over the planet. It'll take a while before chess variant equipment spreads, if many manufactureres can be persuaded it's a winning bet.

If I had to pick a few 'Next Chess' candidates on the spur of the moment, there would be shogi (in spite of the physical pieces), or maybe even Crazyhouse, or Bughouse if 4 players desired, although I'd suspect these last two might be short-lived even if so, as good opening variations seem to be limited. Sticking my neck out more, maybe (10x10) Eurasian Chess has a future, or (in spite of the huge 12x12 board size) Gross Chess perhaps. Picking my own (10x10) Sac Chess may be immodest, but it's possible too. :)

[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?

Hard to sum up the category title you'd like, Fergus, if only one word is allowed to describe it. "Inventor's Choice" is two words (like "President's Choice" was once an advertising gimmick for a supermarket chain), if you're willing to allow that. Then there's just "Choice" as the variants category title. Other than that, your "Showcase" title idea may be the best fit.

If "The Next Chess?" won't work as a Recognized Chess Variant category in any way, perhaps a seperate new page for the concept might be an idea.

I'm not yet sure what to call the new category I proposed, but "Next Chess" is not a good fit. This name presumes a certain design goal behind the variants, and my idea is simply to showcase the best works from prolific inventors. This could include games that some people think could contend for the next Chess, but it could also include games that just go off in a different direction than Chess. I was thinking of calling it a Masterpiece category, but that seems too presumptuous. Showpiece or Showcase might work better.

Regarding my own invented games I've favourited (all the ones with presets, as it happens), Butterfly Chess has one more supporter (i.e. favourited by 3 total currently)  than Sac Chess, which I think is my best variant to date, and is the only one to have made Game Courier's Top 50 played List currently. The other two variants that have one other supporter than just me, currently, are Hannibal Chess and Frog Chess, which I also consider among my best four invented variants to date (not sure the last two have both existed for at least 1 year). Aside from that, I would think the requirement that an inventor cannot nominate his own games to be Recognized Chess Variants will still be in place, if and when more nominations are being accepted.

In my opinion, variants that are played a lot on Game Courier perhaps should receive at least a little more weight for being recognized etc. if in all the logs to date the inventor is not nearly always one of the players involved. I seem to recall George alluded to this sort of point in a post of his long ago.

If Fergus is looking for another category to add to Recognized Chess Variants, aside from keeping the Acclaimed category, perhaps a category "The Next Chess?" is an idea, that is one for variants which editor(s) speculate are so promising as to rival or even overtake chess' popularity as the top variant globally some day. This category might need to borrow some choice variants from those already placed in other categor(ies), though.

Janus Chess at least is a slightly distinctive 10x8 variant from the rest, in that 2 archbishop piece types are used rather than 1 archbishop and 1 chancellor piece type, per side. Regarding all the 10x8 variants that use exactly the same armies per side as Capablanca Chess (but with differing setups), fwiw, I'd nominate just Capablanca Chess for Vintage category, as apparently it is by far the most famous of the bunch, and not bother (at least for now) with rest of the similar 10x8 gang. I could make a more formal nomination, if such were still required and nominations for Recognized Chess Variants are still open to being accepted at this time.

Indeed it does. But it doesn't remove my feeling that 'Capablanca-like Chess', with a history that goes back to Pietro Carrera and backing of a World Champion is more deserving of the 'recognized' title. I would even go so far as to consider Carrera Chess, Bird Chess and Capablanca Chess each by themselves more 'recognized' than Janus Chess. Not that I want to propose to really do that. Because they are just too similar.

Excellent.  Thank you, John.  As Pritchard is an established authority on the historical chess variants, I think that establishes the historical providence of Janus Chess.

Greg,

I have The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, so I looked it up.  There's not a lot of additional information.  It says Janus Chess was invented in 1978 by Rudolf Lauterbach and Werner Schoendorf, and originally marketed as Super-Chess.  The only references mentioned are, "Booklet Janus Schach, also photocopy of manufacturer's publicity material."

I see now HG agrees with me, so cheers to all of you :)!

@Fergus

My favorite game of yours is Caissa Britania although is quite tactical for my taste but it always gives me an otherworldly sensation. I hope to get better as I am quite poor at it :)!

I agree that Capablanca Chess would possibly be the best choice, as  fame probably should have higher weight than priority in the 'recognized' concept. I would not think it a crazy idea, though, to include the various 10x8 sub-variants as a group, perhaps under the name "Capablanca(-like) Chess". And then have it refer to a page that gives an overview of the various initial setups, with links to their articles, and mentioning the slight differences that might exist w.r.t. castling rules. (I think that Schoolbook has 'free castling', and Carrera no castling at all. And there also is Reihard Scharnagl's Capablanca Random Chess, which uses Fischer castling like Chess960.)

As a side note: My personal favorite from Fergus' games is Caissa Brittanica. But that is perhaps because I pay more attention to originality than to playability. And the idea to have a slider that cannot pass through check as a royal piece is very original, and seems to work quite well.

According to the wikipedia entry, Janus Chess was invented in 1978.  There is a reference to Prichard's Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants.  I assume that's the source for the date, because I don't know where else it would come from, but I can't confirm.  I have his Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, but not the Classfied one (sadly, as it is long out of print and is selling for about $175.)  Of the three that I added, I admit this one is less clear-cut than the other two which I considered glaring omissions.  I do know it has seen significant play on brainking.

Also, H.G. has a point that a Capablanca-like game belongs here also, given its long history (back to the 1600s) and the fact that it still spawns variants played today.  It's just difficult to say which game to list.  I'd say Capablanca Chess.  An argument could also be made for Carrera's since that is the original, but Capablanca's is better-known, was invented by one of the best Chess players of all time, and is still played today.

I think the Acclaimed category has merit also, although it is the least necessary and most subjective.  I like your suggestions, Fergus.  There are a couple games in there that should go and you picked the same ones I would.  I think Eurasian Chess may be better-known than Gross Chess, but I completely agree that Gross Chess is better.  It's a terrific game that I've played a lot and am playing right now.  I've been meaning to get around to writing a review.  Eurasian, on the other hand, I would rate "Good", but not "Excellent."  Although, personally, my favorite of your games is Kamakazi Mortal Shogi.

I haven't been keeping up, and I just now read the new comments on this page from this year. I guess I can live with the three new additions that have been made to the list. I'm not sure of the antiquity of Janus Chess, as the page on it doesn't provide a source I can check out. Some things could be removed from the Acclaimed section. Some of the games that made it won design contests but have since been ignored. I'm particularly thinking of Crazy 38s and of Flip Chess and Flip Shogi. Magnetic Chess was highly acclaimed by Pritchard, and I believe the other three have been well-regarded on this site. Maybe this section could use some expansion to include other recent inventions. The Acclaimed category is a good one to keep, because it lets us single out very good games that are not getting a lot of attention in the press or on other websites. Regarding including Eurasian Chess, it is currently tied with Gross Chess as the most favorited of my games, and my personal opinion is that Gross Chess is the better game. Perhaps we could have another category or even expand the Acclaimed category to include the very favorite games of prolific inventors with some peer review over the selection. For example, an inventor could pick the favorite of his own games, and if enough of the editorial staff or other qualified peers approve, it could be added.

Ok, I will make a page hopefully this weekend.

It seems we don't even have a Kyoto-Shogi page here. That is, there is a link page, with a defunct link.

I sort of agree, except the Acclaimed category variants are ones selected by editor(s) (after being nominated), so there could be an argument the editor(s) are choosing 'quality' variants that may or may not have already made the Favorites list chosen just by CVP members, who might be less qualified to judge the worthiness of the variants in question.