Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, May 16, 2007 03:16 AM UTC:This is the obvious place to answer Mats questions/objections from the following post on the game Cataclysm: 'I see no point in this, as this variant is virtually unplayable. The tactical capacity of short-range-pieces is such that this takes too long to play. Could somebody please explain the credo behind these constructs? Are they to be regarded pieces of art, or what? Why not settle for more modest constructs? /Mats' On the CV wiki, there is a discussion [aka: argument] on the definition of chess. It's not entirely serious, and seems to indicate that, in defining 'chess', we are actually stating our own views of what chess is/could be/should be. We apparently define ourselves more than chess. You see chess, or chess variants to be more precise, as something to be played on a small board with about 15-20 pieces per side, if I understand you correctly. What would you consider the size limits of playability, and why? Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID Very Large CVs does not match any item.