Enter Your Reply

Gary, I'd be complimented if you put out a 'Grand Shatranj II', but
Christine has already claimed the name.
Christine, you have to send me the ZRF first, otherwise I let Gary have
the name. 
David, I'm perfectly willing to have the naming controversy here, under
the title of 'Grand Shatranj', because the controversy has some
legitimacy (and I don't mind a little advertising of my games either ;)
Since I firmly believe Grand Shatranj (and Great Shatranj, which you
playtested) are good games, and neither is out separately yet for this
controversy to spill all over their pages, then it is a better forum than
the game of some poor caught-in-the-crossfire poster who was probably
trying to praise the original game. Besides, I'm hoping that you put out
a Great Shatranj game with your own unique stamp on it. ;-)
Seriously, it may be good to have an editorial policy about names. I think
it should be simple. 'No Poaching!' would be a good first approximation,
but I believe it needs to go further than that. My 2 rules suggestion:
appropriate permission or lost in antiquity I believe are at least a good
start. The lost in antiquity rule allows us to call our games 'chess' as
Fergus has indirectly pointed out. (Christine, you got 1st crack at GC2, so
Fergus gets credit for that - okay, you get credit first, but I'm not
going to admit it.)  But I honestly don't see a problem with Gary doing a
variant of my game and using the name GC2 or 3 or whatever, as long as he
got my permission in advance. And I would want to see the game to be sure
it measured up (or down, as the case may be) to my standards as set in the
'original'. If those conditions obtained, and were demonstrated to the
editor, then the name should stand. 
And now I've got too much of a headache to actually make my chess moves.
This being serious stuff is not fun. Well, fortunately, I'm rarely really
serious, seriously! Now, back to having fun.