Enter Your Reply

In following this thread, I've been struck by a few things. One is the
repeated statement that chess variants are easy to design. I will point
out that is only true for those of us who do things like post at
chessvariants. Any activity, existing and being practiced for many
centuries around the world, that is so cheap anyone can participate, which
has been engaged in by less than 1 in 1,000,000, is not all that easy. Even
among the millions and millions of chessplayers [of all chesses], there are
so few [western players] who even consider variants, though many will play
Bughouse or Blitz, or give odds of a pawn, piece, or move. These are all
considered training methods as well as games to be played, and seem to
gain/to have gained legitimacy that way. What's done here is the unusual.
In spite of the fact there are so many attempts to sell CVs commercially. 

Another comment was on the overall structure, or lack thereof, of variant
designs. Actually, I think there is structure of a sort. In some ways,
it's the very messy structure of life, of growing things. The great bulk
of the variants cluster around a few forms, a few ideas. Each may have its
own novelty, but most are clearly recognizable as chess. The 'strategy'
of these games is to stay close to the norm, and it's a rather
well-received strategy. [Disagree? What percentage of CVs use pawns? How
about kings, in the standard chess sense of king? This doesn't even
consider how often knights, bishops, etc are used. If I say all these
things show up in 99% of the games, would anybody object?] But there are
some games that leap off into totally different areas, like Ultima. These
games become new spreading centers when they are very successful. Shogi
and all the variants, many very large, that it spawned are possibly the
best example of what I mean. Chess variants have an evolutionary
structure.