Enter Your Reply

To Aronson was mentioned that Transactional Chess is stand-in for
Kriegspiel. There were already other such explicitly admitted instances in the Next Chess project from 2008. 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=25116
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=23374
They include Schoolbook(#9) for all the Carrera-Capablancas, Fantasy Grand(#16) for publicized Chess Different Armies, and Switching(#23) for Mutators that otherwise keep the core 64-game intact. Any modest change in castling on 64 would be one of the latter that Switching represents too for now. Schoolbook is elevated, though other RN-BN arrays are as worthwhile, because of deep analysis by Trenholme. Kriegspiel was #1 variant of Chess about 1900, and there is no need to re-highlight it whilst K. could be considered today special case of new Transactional anyway. If Transactional(#15) does not hold water altogether for first tier, then neither does subsumed K; or at most by itself K. would only gain notch or two. Thus Next Chesses remaining in top-10 might see their own replacement eventually by close cousins they also have to stand for, to the extent there is lack of agreement among variantists on cases amounting to one and the same CV, more or less. For example, expedited Big Board is probably still Big Board, and the rules ought to be modified by consensus. Specific rules-sets numbering only 1 or 2 will have to be distilled from each numbered Next Chess in the top one-third or one-half. Realize that with input there is to be ongoing migration up and down the ratings. Most of them are already in rules-set compliance that way without ambiguity. Ideally, even Bifurcators(#1) will need specific mechanism for substitutions, or random selection, of piece-types out of many bifurcators, from game to tournament etc., readable as couple or three at most condensed complete rules-sets covering them all -- Caissa willing.