Enter Your Reply

Charles, I agree here that it is the players who would decide what the
'Next Chess' will be by what they play.  I believe what the variant
community can do, is work towards making the environment for it to appear
easier, and more natural.  Enable separate parts of the form to be tested
and tried and lend to a common pool of experience. Also, think in terms of
considering the 'Next Chess' to not be a static set of rules but a
FRAMEWORK by which the rules can continue to evolve over time, while
keeping the community of players intact.  The game should remain fresh and
enable the community to get its needs met.  This means some having the
needs for innovation.  Others for being able to discuss and plan strategy.
 And also the idea that a game remains novel.

As for the equipment question, what does matter is that people have ACCESS
to the equipment and can try out something with as little risk on their
part.  If you say it will be virtual, then players must be able to easily
access the equipment when they want to play.  If they want to buy the
equipment, then it needs to be easy for them.  If you require people to
have to order overseas, it isn't going to happen.  

So, I would say that more thought needs to be given to how the 'Next
Chess' would emerge, rather than what it is.  And then work to make it
so.  Other ways are attempts for people to want to be seen as a genius and
have a name made for themselves.  Plenty of commercial chess variants fall
under that.  The person thinks they have it, and then they decide to sink
a lot of money and time and effort into it.  In a large number of cases,
they get drunk by early success, and then think they have it.  And they
think they own it then.  One can see what happened with the 'name that
shall not be named' and this site regarding this.  I know of others also.
 I have seen them request IAGO have nothing to do with their game, because
they wanted complete control of the game, or felt they had to have it in
their name completely.  This goes as far also as one person who has a cool
playing area the pieces rest on, thinking the play area he pieces rest on
(the board) is what the next chess holds.

Ok, I will close here by saying that if you want to see what the 'Next
Chess' is, lets get a bunch of monkeys a typewriters trying a lot of
things and seeing what sticks and gets popular.  This approach can be the
game of a month as Mr. Duke has hinted at, lending to a champion, but also
elements of games atomized, and remixed, to see what will mix will.  Maybe
we do this atomizing, MAYBE we can also figure out what the value of
pieces are in relation to one another.  The atomizing happens to then lead
to the community collectively determining it.

Well, that is my take on this.  I will probably blab more here on this.  I
am under the impression people do have a serious interest in this
happening, eventhough people may question whether or not it can come to
pass.  We have seen it all before.  Even Super Chess gets mentioned here.

By the way, I do believe the 'Next Chess' will need a migration path
from FIDE chess, in order have the community migrate over.  A rapid jump
isn't going to do it.  Of course, where the game goes after that is an
entirely different animal.  If anyone can show that Chess didn't develop
this way, and didn't evolve from Shatranj, and was a rules modification
(evolution) off that game, then I will stand corrected.  However, if you
can't, then I believe the 'Next Chess' will have to have a way to be
similar to this AND also lead to a place where it can keep evolving, while
keeping the community of players intact.