Enter Your Reply

Well, you brought this upon yourself by complaining that you could not submit additional chess variants because you used up your quota for unprocessed submissions. But if there are still unfinished submissions amongst those, you'd better spent your time on finishing those than on producing more of those. That people point out serious (not to say fatal) flaws should be helpful in finishing them. This is why CVP gives exposure of submissions already to general members, rather than just editors and the author himself.

Not sure what to make of "Anything that can potentially both work and being not described previously, can exist by default." It doesn't seem to apply to this website. Things that have been described previously can be described here, as long as the author properly credits prior art, and 'potentially' doesn't seem good enough. And a board with a long bottleneck only a single square wide through which most pieces could not even pass if the board were empty doesn't even deserve the qualification 'potentially'. As some other editor remarked recently, this website is not intended for dumping random ideas. To make this publishable you would have to address that in a more constructive way than adding a disclaimer that this might not be playable.

I am not very much interested in hexagonal variants, but that you claim Capablanca Chess to be 'unplayable' seems absurd. I have watched many high-level games of Capablanca Chess in the process of conducting the 'Battle of the Goths' tournament, and they were amongst the most interesting and exciting games I have ever seen. Why do you think it (or Safran'sHex Chess) is unplayable?

I agree that chess-variant inventors often highly exaggerate the quality and importance of their inventions. Editors would therefore do well to tune down any claims of the kind you are describing before publishing a submission. And there indeed is an over-abundance of variants embedding a BN and RN (and sometimes QN) piece in an orthodox set on boards of many different sizes. (Varying the board size alone would already provide an infinity of those, BTW, and you would ony have to go up to 1000x1000 or so to exceed a million...)

Too many submissions fail to meet any quality standard because they haven't been playtested even once, and have received only a minimal and sorely insufficient amount of thought. One cannot rely on peer review to fix all the flaws these have; this would catch only the most shocking ones. If someone would try to sell me a boat without a bottom, I would kindly decline the offer. But I probably would not notice if the shape of the hull was such that it is prone to capsizing in heavy wind, while this is just as lethal.