Enter Your Reply

Although I have stated previously (and still maintain) that -
 
'The inverse relation that inescapably exists between the quantity and
quality of the games comprising a collection has been conclusively proven
to me by labor-intensive experience.'

http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/descript.pdf
See 'worldview and games'- page 40.

- I expect few others to share my borderline-fanatical goal of discovering
and implementing a single, best or virtually-perfect chess variant.

At least, I recognize that many prolific game designers hold the logical
viewpoint that the most practical, achievable method to contribute to the
chess variant community lies in striking a balance between high quality
and high quantity backed with years of sustained effort.  Admittedly, I am
too selfish to put my name on (or at least, leave my name on) any game
creation that does not satisfy my highest, current standards of quality. 
In other words, I create game(s) for the chess variant community AND me. 
It is important (to me) not to leave me out of consideration.  I wish more
game inventors thought and acted likewise.

I consider myself a reformed prolificist who became a single-game
perfectionist in 2005.  By the way, that single game switched on me
recently in response to an unexpected, theoretical breakthrough ...

Spherical Chess 400
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots

I strongly hope I got it right this time.

I respectfully caution all prolificists (whether they approve or
disapprove of the term) to be mindful that unless they are successfully
creating the very best, original chess variants in every class of games
they publish, then definitively they are only contributing to a 'number
pollution' of good games (presumably).  Furthermore, it is not possible
to create a best chess variant in any class without a foundation and range
of theory, experience and ingenuity to enable you to correctly see and
surpass the limitations of all of the pre-existing, best games within that
class.

If I can achieve this (i.e., creating a best game within a class) just
once, then I will be proud.  Obviously ... if any of you prolificists can
achieve this 5-10 times, then you have the right to be much more proud
than I.  Some of you who have 50-100 games (or more) in your catalog are
probably confident that you already have achieved this 5-10 times (or
more).  I hope so yet I remain skeptical that any of us have achieved this
even once.  I don't think some of you fully understand or respect what we
are up against by being creative with combinatorial game theory.