Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

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.

IMO the 'acclaimed' section is the most dubious. It seems a legacy of the time from before we had 'favorites', and the need for its existence seems to have vanished now we have the latter.

Fwiw, I felt more able to nominate Eurasian Chess and Modern Shatranj to the Acclaimed Category of Recognized Chess Variants as I saw that there were already precedents in that category for variants unknown or little known outside of CVP, as far as I know (namely Anti-King Chess II and Crazy 38s). These variants all seem to meet the stated criteria for nominees to the Acclaimed category that's on the index page, anyway.

Flagging Top 50 Game Courier List and Our Favorites (sp) variants as Primary Items in the main CVP alphabetical indicies is an interesting idea to attract attention to more games more frequently, and Eurasian Chess certainly would then become a Primary Item. As an inventor myself, I had some slim hope that one day a variant of mine might become an Acclaimed Variant, but just getting one flagged as a Primary Item is also nice too, promotionally speaking.

I also had thoughts of Capablanca Chess being nominated as a Recognized Variant (maybe I assumed it already was?). One thing I haven't noticed is if it is being promoted even a little, like Janus Chess is (e.g. some events with it played). As far as I know, Capablanca Chess never caught on the way Fischer Random Chess kind of did, speaking of another world chess champion's variant.

I think 'recognized' should involve more than just being popular on CVP. I doubt that, say, Eurasian Chess is known outside this website at all. (But I could be wrong.) Atomic Chess does seem to be widely known, however. There are many servers where you can play that on line (e.g. ICC, FICS, LiChess). Variants like ThreeCheck and Horde also seem to be gaining popularity (e.g. on chess.com and LiChess).

I'm also somewhat surprised by the fact that we do list Janus Chess, and not Capablanca. I learned of Capablanca Chess long before I ever heard of Janus Chess. It is a bit of a problem, however, that there are many very similar 10x8 variants (Carrera, Bird, Embassy, Schoolbook, the unspeakable one), some not very notable, but others being the first, the best-known, the best playable, etc. Perhaps they should be grouped and listed as '10x8 Chess'.

I also wonder whether Tenjiku Shogi would deserve some mention. There do exist people playing this outside this website, although the community is not very large.

These are just suggestions to keep in mind; I don't feel very strongly on any of it.

Ok, sorry I didn't notice Makruk.  Obviously, as one of the most popular CVs in the world, that belongs here as well.  It has now been added.  I've also added Rococo to the Popular category.  This game has established its popularity here for well over a decade, and it was the most popular game on the Our Favorites list that wasn't recognized.  I remember reading that Pritchard was planning on including Rococo in the sequal to Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and was working with the editors on this (printing functionality added to Game Courier to make diagrams for the book maybe?  It was something like that.)

I've removed the 'recognized' database flag from Chaturanga so it won't be highlighted as recognized in the lists any more.  Thanks Kevin for pointing that out.

I'm not inclined to add anything else right now, although Eurasian and and possibly some of the other suggestions might well belong here.  We're currently at 45 games and I could see the list going up to 50 (a nice round number), but these are the first additions in twelve years and we've just added four, so no need to rush it.  I think we have corrected for the glaring omissions.  I am going to work on adding the Recognized logo to the tops of the approprate game pages and probably modifying the text on this page somewhat to reflect how it differs from the other popular game lists.

I think for future additions, while popularity on this site is great, evidence of significant popularity in the world at large is more important.  The Our Favorites and Game Courier Top 50 lists already provide insite into what is popular here. Another thing I'm going to do is flag some of the most popular games from these two lists in the database as 'primary' so that they also appear in the short list at the top of each alphabetical index page.

Thanks Greg.

Besides the two variants H.G. just suggested, I've seen a number of other variants suggested to be recognized, as I quickly went back through all the comments over the years, so far within this thread. The number is reasonably small, so perhaps they are worth recapping (Fergus may have considered many, if not all, of these already, however):

1.Seirawan Chess; 2.Alekhine Chess (I think I might well not agree); 3.The Maharajah and The Sepoys; 4. 4-way chess; 5. Atomic Chess; 6. Yonin Shogi; 7.Sittuyin (Burmese Chess); 8.Rococo; 9.Carrera's Chess; 10.Makruk and 11.Kyoto Shogi (the two H.G. mentioned last post).

I also noticed that Fergus commented that he was going to remove (2 player) Chaturanga from the Recognized Chess Variants list - somehow it's still listed as such except for on the index page for Recognized Chess Variants.

I think Makruk also deserves to be recognized. More than a million people play it as their primry board game, and it is at least as different from orthodox Chess as Jiangi is from Xiangqi.

BTW, what about Kyoto Shogi? I don't know how popular that is (it seems an awful game to me, for humans), but I noticed that pieces for it are commercially sold in Japan. Which must seem worth something.

Having received no objections, Chu Shogi, Circular Chess, and Janus Chess have been added as Recognized Variants.  They have been added to this page, and flagged as Recognized in the database so they will be boldface in the index.  I notice that some of the pages for Recognized variants don't have the 'Recognized' banner at the top, so I'll work on taking care of that as well.

@ Greg:

Has there been any objection or reason(s) to delay putting Chu Shogi, Circular Chess or Janus Chess on the CVP list of Recognized Chess Variants?

That may have been intentional.  Turns out we don't actually know what the rules of Chaturanga were, and it's entirely possible that the rules were the same as Shatranj.

In case it was missed, earlier I also mentioned that Chaturanga is already a Recognized Variant, but somehow it was not listed on the index page for Recognized Variants, so perhaps this might be changed too, unless somehow the omission was intentional.

I think it is important to have a well-maintained list of 'recognized variants'. This is not the same as a 'favorite'.

I completely agree.  The "favorites" is a useful feature, and a great addition, but in my mind is something rather different than an official list of Recognized Variants, curated by the editoral staff, with the advice and concent of the members.  The favorites list is more point-in-time.  The number of participants of this website actively marking things as favorites is limited; the number of people who will go back and un-mark even moreso.  The "most popular on game courier" is also a great feature, but again something different.  I'm happy with the progress we are making in giving our users various metrics to help explore the universe of chess variants and cull out the hundreds of unremarked upon variants.  I have some ideas about how we can further that process as well.  But I think, for the forseeable future, the Recognized Variants list will still fill a unique role.  Although it has not been updated for a long time, looking at it now as an editor and chess variant enthusiast, I still think it's pretty darn good, and I don't think you'll find a better short-list of variants with which to explore this space anywhere.  To me, this demonstrates its utility.

In light of recent comments, though, there are a couple of omitions.  I didn't realise that neither Circular Chess nor Byzantine Chess were listed until Kevin Pacey mentioned it.  I had recently noticed Chu Shogi because of H. G. Muller's page submission and Game Courier activity, but never noticed that oversight before.  And Kevin also mentioned Janus Chess.  That is also an oversight as well.

There are, I'm sure, other games that could be included, and maybe some that should be removed.  But I don't think we're yet in the place for a formal process on this.  So, for now, I would propose that we add the following three items: Chu Shogi, in the Vintage category, and Circular Chess and Janus Chess in the Popular category.  If any member of the community feels that one of these additions is not justified, please reply.  Otherwise, in a week and a half, if no objection is raised, I will add them.

I think it is important to have a well-maintained list of 'recognized variants'. This is not the same as a 'favorite'. Variants can be important for historic reasons, such as Shatranj, which is an awful game by today's standards, but a 'must-know' for everyone whose curiosity goes beyond orthodox Chess.

Regional variants, played today by millions of people (such as Makruk and Jiangi) definitely belog in this list. And so does Chu Shogi: it is possible to play that 'life' (i.e. in real time, with clocks, rather than correspondence) on-line on a server dedicated for it. How many other variants can claim that? In addition it has been central in the development of Japanese Chess.

Hi Ben

Fwiw, I saw a comment under this subject thread, posted some years ago, to the effect that Korean Chess ought to be considered for upgrading to Classic status (one long time CVP contributer subsequently concurred).

A way to keep the number of Recognized Variants on the index page to a small number might be to set an arbitrary maximum number of them to be allowed on the index page, say 40, 50, or even as many as 100 (still a tiny fraction of the number of variants that can be found on this website), though I doubt this last figure will be reached for a long time, if ever, if future panels are as selective as may be called for.

The 'Popular Variants' category does have a series of criteria stated on the index page, which at least some future panel members could insist be satisfied as well as possible by a nominated game to the category. 'Acclaimed Variants' as a category could be more representative of the cream of them, as selected by a future panel.

To my mind, a Recognized Variants list is a suggested set of lists of categories of what are the cream of (in other words, the most distinguished) chess variants, which the GC Top 50 or Member Favourites lists don't necessarily claim to show (these other lists can be looked at by anyone looking for a second or third opinion, so to speak). 

I think the Recognized list is about as long as it should be: I'd like it to serve as a short list of games that somebody new to variants and this site would start with.

The Classic are unlikely to be touched any time soon.  The Vintage and Famous could be updated over time, but it should be a slow process (in particular, see the criteria for Vintage).  The Popular and Acclaimed lists, to me, have been superceded by the Favorites list and Game Courier's most played list.  However, in the spirit of keeping the page up to date, I wouldn't mind (1) dropping these lists in favor of links to Favorites and GC-MostPlayed or (2) updating the list(s) with panel-chosen games; in either case, I would advocate for keeping a historical recording of what games are removed or added and when (removed games should be thought of perhaps as good games that have gone out of vogue).

If this gets updated: I don't think there needs to be any word count or similarly mechanical requirement for proposals.  The proposal just needs to convince whoever is making the decisions that a game should be added.

@ Greg:

I can suggest a way to re-open this program, if enough editorial staff are interested in doing so:

1) At the end of each month, a panel of editorial staff (plus a single willing expert in their opinion, such as H.G., added if necessary to make the panel an odd number if desired) will review all of that month's properly submitted nominations of games to become Recognized Variants to be added to the index page (similarly, perhaps nominations to consider changing a Recognized Variant's category, such as from Vintage to Classic, might be considered). Also, there could be a review of any properly submitted nominations of games that should be removed from said index page. Note that any member of the panel will recuse himself if one of his inventions is up for consideration;

2) After review individually by each member of the panel, the panel will discuss among itself, and then vote on, whether to accept (or remove) each of nominated games on (or from) the index page. I'd recommend, so that the index page doesn't change too quickly, that a vote must be unanamous to add or remove a game from the index page. However, a 2/3+ majority or simple majority might be preferred instead (up to editorial staff). Note that if a panel of an odd number cannot be composed in time, a tied vote could be considered as a vote to keep the status quo regarding a properly nominated game's status.

Aside from the above suggestion of mine, I'm wondering if the existing rules on how to properly submit a nomination of a game to be a Recognized Variant are adequate, or whether there should be an idea offered of what a review by a nominator should look like, e.g. minimum number of words.

Hi Greg

I thought of nominating Chu Shogi, but I never finished playing the single (over-the-board) game I played against a friend once, so I felt unsure of it's merits as far as being a good game to play. I've never played a game of Shatar, but it's close enough to FIDE that I can grasp its merits. I also haven't played Makruk, but as the game's page states games are frequently drawn, I wasn't enthusiastic about rating the game even as high as "Good", though I'm sure it's a real thrill when someone does pull off a nice win. Other historic or regional games surely ought to be considered as Recognized Variant candidates, too.

Although the Recognized Variants list hasn't been updated in a long time, I'm not sure that it couldn't be updated.  I agree with you that there is value in both this list and in the "Favorites."   I've actually been thinking about what is the best way to update this.  There are certainly at least a few games that should be added and possibly one or two that should be removed in my opinion.

All of the games you have nominated for addition seem reasonable to me.  I would also add Chu Shogi, as it has been played for, literally, hundreds of years, and is still played today.

Gads! Somehow I missed the following on the index page:

"Note: This [Recognized Chess Variants] is a defunct program that has been idle since 2006. It has been replaced by the Favorites page, which ranks the favorite games of our members."

In spite of that, somehow I like the idea of having a seperate program to isolate what is considered to be the cream of chess variants, by editorial staff plus CVP members. Too bad I stayed up late last night, if there's still no thought of reviving the program by editorial staff. :(

I nominate Eurasian Chess as a Recognized Variant of the Acclaimed category.

I begin my review with a quote from the game's CVP webpage:

"[The inventor] conceived of the game as a synthesis of European and Asian forms of Chess, predominantly FIDE Chess and Chinese Chess. But [the inventor] also incorporated elements from Grand Chess, another popular variant from Europe..."

I find this synthesis of other games and their elements to have produced a refreshing result. The cannon and vao pieces, along with the rules governing the kings and pawn promotions, can affect a game's tactics and strategy in interesting ways.

I nominate Modern Shatranj to be a Recognized Variant of the Acclaimed category.

My review begins with a quote from the game's CVP webpage:

"[Modern Shatranj] is intermediate between Shatranj and Orthodox Chess."

With modern elephants (aka ferfils) replacing bishops, and generals (aka guards) replacing queens (plus pawns moving only always one step and promoting to general), the game otherwise plays as a kind of slower paced, but elegant, version of orthodox chess.

I nominate Shatar to be a Recognized Variant of the Vintage category.

My review begins with a quote from the game's CVP webpage:

"Shatar was the variant of chess, played for many centuries in Mongolia, before it was replaced by FIDE chess by pressure of the former CCCP."

I find the restrictions on how one can perform a final series of checks in order to win, rather than merely draw, to give this variant an interesting and challenging twist.

I nominate Janus Chess to be a Recognized Variant of the Popular category.

My review begins with a quote from the CVP webpage for this game:

"Several chess masters and grandmasters play this game, and have participated in Janus Chess tournaments, including Korchnoi."

I like that in this variant the minor pieces and Janus pieces often seem to all develop smoothly, nice for a 10x8 game.

I nominate Circular Chess to be a Recognized Variant of the Popular category.

My review begins with a quote from the CVP webpage for Circular Chess:

"In 1996, Dave Reynolds started the Circular Chess Society, and this (so far small but growing) Society had [its] first world championship in 1996."

I find this excellent game a challenge to play because one not only must consider each front of the battle, but how they might affect each other.

Somehow Chaturanga is not given in any category on the index page for Recognized Variants, though I found it by clicking on the link to a list of all Recognized Variants.

Are there still being nominations taken for new Recognized Variant(s)? If so, it appears the only way to submit a (mandatory) proper review of a nominated game is to give a rating of a game (must be 'Good' or 'Excellent') via a Comment on this webpage (rather than on the game's own webpage), and to include one's reasoning why the game in question should be a Recognized one (and in which category), rather than give a more normal type of review.

It seems that the idea of having a Recognized Variant of the month is long a thing of the past, unless there is a wish to revive the idea.

yep

Gives as usual good staff.
Continue providing us with new material.

Fairy-Max should also not have any problems playing such a variant,if you configure it for it.

Superchess,as predefined in Fairy-Max, is sort of an implementation of this on an 8x8 board, where the orthodox pieces are randomly replaced by RN, BR, QN and KN.

A favorite chess variant of mine that I've played on the Zillions of Games
software is called Alekhine Chess. Of all the chess variants that I played
on Zillions it's my favorite. You can read about it here 
http://www.zillions-of-games.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi?do=show;id=39

It has a non-standard board size of 8 x 14 squares and 3 non-standard
pieces. The rook/knight, bishop/knight and a queen/knight. All the other
chess pieces are used. If you wanted to play it on a standard 8 x 8 board
you could play a variant of this variant by just using one rook, knight,
bishop, bishop/knight, rook/knight and queen/knight and that way get in the
3 different pieces on a standard board. 

I recommend Alekhine Chess to anyone looking for an interesting chess
variant. May not be easy to find someone to play it with though you could
play it on the Zillions of Games software. Zillions came out years ago and
am not sure if it is compatible with Vista or Windows 7 but it is with XP
and earlier versions of Windows. Anyone looking for a way to play chess
variants against a computer might want to check out Zillions of games.

Hi;

I have seen an interesting variant, called though I can't find it anywhere
it is quite fun. All players are labeled on the bottom with numbers, each
unique. Every type of player is assigned a number of points it is worth,
pawns, 1, rooks 2, horses 3, bishops 4, and the king and queen are not
assigned any.
Each of the two players is given a certain number of points, perhaps five.
They then each have five cards of paper (same number as points), and
secretly 'choose' their enemy's players, writing their numbers of the
chosen players on their cards before the first piece is moved. A player may
choose to 'buy' five of their enemy's pawns, or their bishop and a pawn,
the horse and a rook, etc, to equal the amount of points they were given.
During the game the players can order their enemy's players to desert, or
refuse orders at any time, and they will then change color. Your opponent
must 'prove' he has 'bought' your player before game started by
presenting the card he wrote the number of that player on to you. You may
kill your own players on suspicion of treason, and you may kill your own
players to get out of a checkmate. This makes for an interesting game. Has
anyone else here played this? What is it called?

I would like to recommend Makruk/Ouk Chatranj as a recognized variant.  It
has been around for centuries and is widely played in Thailand and
Cambodia.  It appears to have a similar popular status in Thailand as
Shogi does in Japan (media reports of professional games, etc.)  It is not
'obsolete,' but is still popular in some parts of the world.  If Xiangqi,
Shogi, and Janggi are recognized, I think Makruk should get a spot on the
poll.

A quick review: I don't have much time to write one, but I'll briefly
state that I find it a very subtle game with a lot of tactical plays and
nuances.  Although similar to Western/Orthodox Chess, the lack of the
powerful queen and bishops in this game provides the players with the
challenge of overcoming the wall of pawns (called bia) by tactical
manoeuvres perhaps even seemingly costly sacrifices.  The khon is a
particularly interesting piece -- it moves like the silver in Shogi, and
is generally slower than the knight (called ma), but in end game
situations it can be considerably more powerful due to its unique
movements.

Accordingly, I strongly recommend making Makruk/Ouk Chatranj a recognized
chess variant.

http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/janus.html

Atomic Chess is popular, it is played in several live chess sites. I don't
see a reason wht it shouldn't be a recognized variant. There are even
websites about it. To name two : 

http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/Atomic/atomic.html

and : http://vagonchik.info/sigge/tipau/

Whoops, I didn't think that I shouldn't nominate it because I made the
page.  I thought that I could do so because I didn't invent the game.

As for its popularity, it was made into a Super Famicom (Japanese SNES)
game (not many CVs are besides Chess and Shogi), although the rest of your
argument sort of makes this a moot point.