Comments by RichardHutnik

I will add this to the conversation now:
We are seeing the future of chess happening.  It is happening in the form
of Speed Chess, and also Chess960.  There is Bughouse also as team play. 
These are playing and growing and happening.  As the community gets tired
of some things, and wants more, then more will be rolled out.  It is going
to happen, irregardless of what anyone thinks about it.  It is happening. 
What matters here is whether or not the Variant community is going to have
any input into this.  My take regarding this is, unless they managed to get
things coordinated and actually address issues and get standards, there
will be a remaining on the margins.  So, on this, the NextChess project is a chance for the variant community to have input, or get left to the wayside.

As for some 'end of Civilization event', there as much of a chance of Go
becoming the game, then some royal elimination, checkmate the King piece
game.  There is also chance it may not be in boardgame form at all. 
People may go straight digital here.

As far as extinction goes, what will happen is eventual wear and tear on the game, and the words 'Chess is now SOLVED' coming about.  Then people look for things to address these issues, and they are going on now.  People have different things they look to revitalize the game.  Even Seirawan and Harper have gotten into it.

On the board size, I believe 12x12 should become standard, if you are
going to declare anything as default.

Some more comments for today:
1. George, I did get your email, but did you get any reply back?  I am not
sure what is up.  Please let me know.
2. In regards to having some organization, with large funds, that will
somehow back a brand new campaign to covert large numbers over, anyone
know where this organization is supposed to get money from?  I understand
the interest there in this, but where is it realistically?  I would say
the organizations on the planet now that MIGHT be able to approach what
you have are: International Mind Sports Association (IMSA), the British
Chess Variants Society, the CV Website, and IAGO.  If you look at these,
you see:
A. IMSA is backed by FIDE.  NO WAY you will get revolt organization
supporting it.
B. The British Chess Variants Society apparently has NO interest in the
Next Chess project at all.  Such discussions was seen as disruptive and
horrible.  
C. The CV Website.  Hello everyone here!  Can anyone here see any form of
consensus being formed over ANYTHING on here?  If the CV website happens
to act here, then it needs to actually get behind some project and come up
with some standards that can be agreed to and used.  If that doesn't
manifest, then this site will just be a bunch of individuals who want to
be creative 'Arteests' (Pinky up) who see creating games as a form of
artistic expression.
D. IAGO. And in his, you are talking as a driving force behind it and
others.  You have read my opinions on this, and seen my proposals.  I also
am aware of what it will take financially, and that will need to involve
FIDE chess folks to even have a chance of making it.  And the Next Chess
is going to have to play nice with the FIDE version, the way Chess960 and
others do.  IAGO will look to be working with FIDE, the USCF and the
entire FIDE Chess audience, so I don't see where disruption will come out
of this.
3. Also note that FIDE Chess does represent where the community as a whole
has settled.  They do have things now that address different issues with
the game, so FIDE chess will live on.  How long?  Well, not sure.  But,
the mechanics are in place for it to remain so for a LONG time.  Support
has built around this game.  And slight tweaks have given new life, to
address issues.  These issues being (and their solution):
A. Chess takes too long to play, and has to many draws.  Speed chess
addresses this.
B. The opening book is stale.  Chess960 addresses this.
C. What about team play?  There is bughouse. And you can throw in a mix of
large numbers of variants here if you want more.

I will say you could get a Next Chess project working and have it make
progress and be sustainable.  However, it isn't going to happen via
disruptive evolution.  Only way that MIGHT happen is that we get enslaved
and some dictator on top forces people to play something else.  Anyone
want to go for this?  I will need to pass here.

A simple project would be to come up with a classification and taxonomy
system for chess variants, that would work.  This may be a place to start.

Example of organizations that were supposed to peddle the 'Next Chess'. 
Here are some.  Study from these and explain how a new organization would
be different:
1. FEMDAM.  This organization pushed Modern Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/modern.html

They had a run during the 1970s and disappeared.

2. The Name that shall not be named.  This is the patented version of the
Capablanca chess games.  How is that doing now?  How does a game that
ticks off the CV website stand a chance of having any success?

Other ones out there, and various commercial games.  How are they doing
and how have they done?  Contrast that to Bughouse and Chess960, which
don't have organizations promoting them.  They still grow and have a
following.  These have done better than the other two.

On the commercial front, Navia Dratp comes to mind as another game that
maybe could replace normal chess.  Why is it no longer in production?

The word 'Architecture' is actually a good one to use here, particularly
if the intention of what is being made intends to be used.  My comment
regarding the 'arteest' is a case where the person isn't thinking in
terms of what they are making actually being played by people in a
meaningful way, but rather was just an idea someone has, that they pen
down, as a form of expression on their part.  They aren't thinking in
terms of the player, but their own needs.  If it is done from an architect
standpoint, then it is good.  If it is done as a painter, for just
self-expression, that is another thing.

As for what I want, I am taking this from a perspective of a person
running an organization that seeks to promote abstract strategy games, rather than a person who is a game designer (and yes, I have done that, and have done the 'arteest' thing myself).  What I want is there to be a way for Chess variants to work together and lend to a greater community experience that will increase the numbers of people playing them, and lend to a dialog between the FIDE crowd and the variant crowd.  I want something that will be lived in, rather than looked at as some oddities in a museum somewhere. That is my goal.  If I were writing from a designer standpoint, I would be wanting people to play my games, and create more as a basis for personal expression.

I am of the belief that whatever the NextChess is, it isn't going to be
one of these self-satisifying interests projects.  Instead, it will be something that is a mix of personal insighs, and discovers, a part accident, and a whole LOT of playing and testing by a community of players.  

And as for standards, my belief is that, if you want a community of people
to take to whatever comes out from the NextChess project, the game is going
to need a bunch of people to input, and the community to be able to
communicate and expect things.  The standards provide a framework for
adoption.  Standards agreed to by a community enable things to evolve and
adapt.

Let me give you an example of a game that totally disregards the idea of
standards (and creating for one's own interest): Seirawan Chess.  Yes, the game has cool features.  Gating, which is how the pieces get in (and a name I had come up with to describe it), is cool.  But it didn't have a name, thus the concept couldn't be used by anyone else.  The take the name of the pieces: Hawk and Elephant.  Is there ANYONE on this planet who had used such pieces before with that name and those type of movement?  No, Seirawan and Harper didn't like the conventions that had been used for CENTURIES and decided to do it their own way.  They also don't want anyone else to touch it.  It is their game and theirs alone.  They own it, and decide what to do with it.  They don't want it to be anything but their game, and that is that.  And you aren't supposed to use their pieces for any other purpose but what they intended to.  The Elephant from their game is a Knight+Rook combination, and that is it.  In this, if there were conventions and standards, then whatever the pieces were used in Seirawan Chess could be used by the Chess variant community for is own games, and there is a market for equipment created that is sustainable.

And, in this, is what I describe as the need for standards.  Without them,
you produce a million different Seirawan Chess games, each of which are
their own deadends and don't represent anything to be adopted by he
players, and allowing them, through their play, to make the needed changes
to keep the game alive.  Without standards, every few years yet another
person comes along and creates the same piece, or same twist on things,
and then adds YET ANOTHER name for the same piece to the mix.  Look at
what has happened with 4 player chess.  The game gets reinvented by large
numbers of people, each with their own twists and variants, and each by
the creator thinking they are the one.

In all this, because you haven't established and standards and
conventions, results in fragmentation and a selection process of picking a
game that might become the next one, to be like lottery, with each person
dipping into a bag to pull something out and hoping all the selections
line up.  And in this, every item is something with the word 'Chess'
after it.

Well, what I am suggestion here is different.  Work on a way for players
to 'roll their own' for some extent, to experiment, and then see what
works, and by the use of standards and conventions, communicate their
findings.  Have a way for he variance to fit into the ecosystem whatever
the Next Chess will be.  Have it so that people know what the heck is
being talked about.  This is standards and conventions.  Lack these, and
you are doing a personalized lottery system where games played are ends
unto themselves, with everyone having their own preference and nothing
contributing to the collective whole.

On this front, I am looking at a spreadsheet of over 500 chess variants
that are playable NOW on, all cataloged, described and indexed which I
will look to get into a database.  Not exactly sure how this pick one of
500 everyone and play, will lead to the Next Chess.

Ok, I have rambled enough.  I hope my 'arteest' comment makes sense now,
and is not seen as offensive as it first appeared.

Do you see any chance of SuperChess becoming a giant success worldwide if
it is merely a one man operation?

While I can commend the success it has had, I am curious how far its
approach would get.  This being said, if SuperChess does offer a
sufficient foundation for the NextChess, I would be interested in having
IAGO help back it.  At the least, I am interested in getting it on the
IAGO World Tour schedule.

I am not going to say a one man band, or small group, can work to promote
an abstract strategy game, and make it successful.  If you look at
Othello, that is the case.  A small group market and promote it, and have
had success with it.  They did manage to put in place an organization
(World Othello Federation), to make sure that there would be annual world
championship in the game, and foster community.  This is needed.  Of
course, with Othello, they reworked Reversi with a better set of rules,
but it didn't really match anything else out there.  In the area of
chess-like games, we do have chess, and numbers of variants of it.  This
makes a chess variant much harder to sell than say Othello.  In the case
of where the variant doesn't require people to buy new equipment, then
there is one less revenue stream to the people who would promote it.

I do agree the number of people who would promote is far less relevant
than whether a community will take to a game.  This community is what
makes a game relevant.  And I believe they are the ones who need to find
and adapt whatever form the game and its rules take, to make it viable.

On this community front, an objective of IAGO is to provide a community
for games that may no be able to sustain a community for their survival if
they went it alone.  By also getting people who play multiple games to have
a place to play, the game has a better chance of making it.  In this also
is coordinating the effort of abstract strategy games that do have
communities with them, and also help them grow.  These communities provide
the place for variants and smaller games to be able to find players and
hang around long enough to grow up on their own.

My understanding of 'Mad Queen Chess' (also went by Queen's Chess way
back when), was they wanted a way to accelerate the game, because they
found the game took too long to play.  In addition to the Mad Queen and
Mad Bishop, castling got added, along with the double pawn move and also
en passant.  Apparently all these modifications worked as evolutionary
additions.  They did make he game more complicated, but they did work.

An interesting thing, assuming Chaturanga in whatever form was the base of
all chess-like games, is that when it went East, the people decided to push
the pawns up, rather than give them extra mobility.  By doing this, none of
all the things we know got into the game.  Apparently, the issue for
speeding up had to do with the pawns.  The west gave them double
movement.

Well, what can we learn here?  Flat out, if a community find something
that is 'good enough' a solution, and enough people get interested and
use it, it becomes standardized.  Look at about anything being adopted,
from Microsoft Operating Systems, to the QWERTY keyboard, to http for web
pages.  They are good enough, and people adopt them and they work. 
Apparently Chess960 and Bughouse also fit into this to.  People see it
meets a need, works, and they go with it.   That is the history of how
technology gets developed.  And, this is why I keep speaking of standards.
 Don't follow this path, and you don't stand much of a chance of having
the NextChess happening.  That is my take.  Please show why it is wrong if
you disagree. 

I am leaning towards the belief that people don't really believe there
will be a NextChess that will ever come about, because they don't think
they have the resources or means to make it come about.  People in this
thread have thrown ideas out there, and spoke of some sort of rich and
powerful organization able to muscle its will on the world, and end up
causing FIDE chess to go extinct.  I don't think people believe such will
happen, so everyone (everyone being the norm of expectations) is operating
from perfect world perspective of a fantasy dreamland, so they get way
idealistic and plug in their own personal preferences of what they want.

So, on this note, let's say you could have the 'NextChess' appear. 
This is not a perfect world that it does.  There is no powerful
organization to muscle itself, but it happens naturally.  In light of
this, what would you want to see the game accomplish.  I am NOT asking for
the specific form, but what should it accomplish?  What should it do better
than FIDE chess.  As I see it, I would like to see the following (please
suggest your own):
1. An introductory form that is easier to learn than FIDE chess that
people could then go to the next level with.  Go has this with different
sized boards.  The rules are simple enough, but the board varies.  In
Chess like games, having a way to ramp up the complexity is a bonus.
2. A handicapping system that provides novices a shot to compete against
advanced players.  Go has this.
3. An ability to integrate variants into play, without each variant being
seen as entirely different games.  Count in this, a way for the game to
continue to evolve.  NextChess allows you to develop scenarios for it. 
Throw in mutators into here also.  The game is able to handle mutators. 
If the game Advanced Squad Leader were treated as chess, every scenario
for it would be seen as a different game.  And if you go hardcore about
Chess960 the same way, it would end up being treated as 960 different
games.
4. Greatly reduce the chance of the game drawing.  At LEAST have a way for
a draw to score differently for each side in a meaningful way that reflects
play.  Also, in this, might as well throw in a more granular scoring system
for games.  This could also work with handicapping. 
5. Ways to prevent the opening book from becoming stale.... and this I
mean FOREVER.  Ok, if not FOREVER, at least a long time.  The game should
be robust enough that new solutions can arise without causing the
community of players to fragment.
6. Ability to integrate a variety of pieces and new pieces into it.  And
these pieces can be valued properly.
7. Ability to handle more than 2 players, either as teams or individually
(ok, I am on a perfect form here, while I may find this maybe not needed,
it would be nice thugh).
8. Handles shuffles, drops, gating and reserves (ok, I am hinting here at
a way to keep the opening book fresher).

These are features I would like to see from the NextChess, whatever form
it takes in specific rules.  Please list what you would like to see.  I
hope this makes sense.  And please DON'T say you can't do it.  Maybe we
don't get all, but wouldn't it be helpful to list what FIDE Chess could
do better?  Know this, and you then can know what the NextChess could
address in its design.

I want to add a few comments for the night, before I end up going to sleep
here:
1. Any 'large organization with a large budget' that proposes to wrestle
away the chess community into something new, is one that wants to
completely take over the community itself, and have it for itself.  You
can see this in what happened with the Capablanca variant that began with
G, and another that is a chess variant I know with a movable board (the guy thinks he will own the chess world, and his board is the future) and others.  Such an individual or organization doing it is doing it either out of some power trip for personal glory, or the belief there is so much money in it, that they are going to stomp out the competition.  Is this something people here want to deal with, or would you rather input into the process collectively and hit some middle ground that all stakeholders can buy into.   This would be an open-source project.
2. As for 'why not just have a collection of variants like we have now,
and no do some NextChess'.  Well, how is this working?  Is what we have
now here nothing more than just an monsterously large collection of
discrete games?  Is it resulting in the building up of anything?  Is such
resulting in us getting any commercial equipment to buy?  Is it viable? 
Or, do people want to rationalize how it is GREAT to end up making your
own pieces, cutting off pieces here and there, and gluing them back
together?  Or, how about using Seirawan Chess pieces in ways the designer
of the game objects to, because they don't make elephant pieces?  In a
nutshell, is this working.  Anyhow what I am saying with 'NextChess' is
NOT that it should replace all these variants out there, but it could be a
way to act as a way for all these variants to work together and enhance one
another.
3. On a practical level, IAGO wants to have tournaments in physical
locations using actual pieces.  At this point, pieces to do chess variants
are not available really anywhere in a way that people can acquire them.  I
have practical reasons for standards.  Also, there will be an interest in
holding chess variants tournament, and working towards having a world
champion of chess variants.  The idea of just picking a single game and
doing that way isn't as effective then taking chess variants as a
category unto itself, and enabling a champion to emerge.
4. It has been shown that standards are how you get anything to take off. 
Now, you can end up having these standards shoved down the throats of
people by some power on high, who has bucks, or you can agree to reach
them.  The former is the Borg, and the later is the Federation.  If you
don't want to work to having standards, then you will get stuff shoved
down your throat.  Who here wants the Knight+Rook combo piece to be an
elephant, and a Knight+Bishop to be a hawk?  Well, unless you care to work
on this and agree, it is entirely possible that, because they are the only
pieces for sale that have this, the pieces would get that name.  Expect
that to happen if the Seirawan group decides, for financial reasons,
people can use their pieces in variants.  From an IAGO perspective, it
wouldn't mind that happening, because at least there is SOMETHING for
sale out there.  Well, let me say from my take on what I feel IAGO needs
to do, it makes sense.  Boards and committees would formally decide this.
5. The standards should always be between games and for translation
purposes and when you decide to have two different designs mash together,
for example.  It also enables people to understand what the heck one is
talking about in their game, when describing it.  When wanting to discuss
and compare pieces, then you need standards for this.
6. I do understand that designers can call something anything they like.  However, a game being viable is no only designers creating, but also a community of players who play.  It is a dialog between the two.  Standards help with the communications.  Also, when you get standards, you allow people to specialize.  You get people who are good at designing pieces types just working on those.  You also get people who are good at combining pieces together in games to do that, and so on.  
7. What was stated about FIDE is what I have been looking to address. 
Unless there is some way to enable to have the FIDE Chess crowd and
variant community be able to communicate, you aren't going to get much
recognized here, and possible expansions to take place.  Both sides need
to recognize and work together, then you may have something.

Ok, here are daily comments on what has been written so far from my last
posting:
1. How effective of a recruiting tool into the world of chess variants are
home made sets?  If someone who plays a game, and likes it somewhat, what
are the odds they will end up continue to play and promote it, if they had
to go and make their own set?  Sure, from a totally dead end activity where
you are the only person who they may play, it is ok, but for promoting the
growth of chess variants, how well does it work?  Let's say someone has
you try a cardgame, and you like it, and then they tell you you need to
make your own cards to play it.  Will you do that?
2. Is anyone else here not confused by those SuperChess pieces?  I look a
them, and I have difficulty remembering which set of pieces is which.  I
commend the effort, but the pieces leave me confused.
3. Hmm... GREAT, there is another factor that wasn't even on my mind
until now.  How and the heck is the chess variant community going to
happen to be able to do notation for games in a way that everyone can
understand?  I believe algerbraic notation is helpful for recording moves,
but board positions?  What do we do then?  I know this will be important
down the road for IAGO, if it is going to be covering a range of chess
variants as part of the IAGO World Tour.
4. Ok, the name of the pieces (what they are as initials, also has me
confused here).  I have to see yet another set of names for games that
Capablanca used and tried to popularize?  Again, my reference at standards
points a bit at this.  If you go by a hard and fast rule that everyone
creates their own games in isolation from one another, you end up with 40+
different names for he same piece.  And actually the same name used with 5+
different pieces.  Yes, you get cool artistic expression, but how is it on
the community?  When I was doing IAGO chess, should of stuck with
'Templar' for the Knight+Bishop piece, and 'Champion' for the
Knight+Rook piece, because my artistic expression demands I do it?  How
helpful is it to the community.  I am not forbidding anyone from doing
this, but asking how reasonable is it to have this as a hardcore rule?
5. On the issue of pawn promotion, unless the chess variant community is
going to abandon completely having physical pieces (not sure how one gets
growth without then though), exactly how does one handle pawn promotion in
games where you can have a piece promote to multiple versions of Queen
power pieces.  Like take a Capablanca Chess game, and you want to get a
second Chancellor or Archbishop into play.  How is this handled?  Are we
going to permanently adapt a flipped chess rook as a 'Joker' piece that
a pawn can promote to, and the Joker can represent anything?  Are we going
to codify flipped rooks as a new piece, or demand people making chess
variants provide enough physical equipment to handle every case of pawn
promotion, or do we give up on the idea of having physical equipment
completely?  We set up a nice place for all traces of chess variants to
disappear if the Internet and all computers ever blew up with do that, by
the way.
6. If you want things to remain exactly as they are, with each game being
seen as unique creations and islands to themselves, then you don't need
to consider standardization.  You don't even need to consider any game a
'chess variant'.  It is just a game.  So, the CV site could also then
break out checkers and Go to, and play those (there are presets on here),
because heck, everyone just plays games.  There is no such thing as
'Chess Variants', just games.  I will say this is unworkable from an
IAGO perspective though, which also needs to categorize abstract strategy
games.
7. One project I am looking at is a protocol system so websites that play
games can communicate their games with IAGO.  Having it handle a wide
range of abstract strategy games, would be of big help here.  I would lead
he way for people to get rated across a categories of games or abstract
strategy games in general. The SuperDuperGames site does this.

I have another heretical proposal.  The next chess is....

SPEED CHESS!

To address a multitude of issues, looks like that the chess world is
taking to speed chess, on the 'sports' level.  The World Mind Sports Games
looks like it is using Speed Chess as the basis of its events.

So, variant community, if this trend continues, the attempt to input this world of chess variants on the rest of the world.

So, we should then use a flipped rook to represent a Chancellor,
Archbishop, Amazon, Cannon, Fez, and Wazir also, and not just a queen?

Is that going to get codified in rules somewhere?

Ok, I figure it is best to chime in with a few things here:
1. Regarding pawn promotion: In a nutshell, I want there to be an
agreement that whomever creates variants or complete new chess games, be
able to account for all the needed game equipment to be able to handle all game states that arise, and have the game rules be able to explain how they are handled.  My preference would be in a common standard towards this.  This means, if
you are going to allow for promotion to a large number of the same kind of
pieces, you explain where the material to have this will happen.  You make
sure the game rules aren't broken.  Go on Boardgamegeek, for example, and
look at what the opinion is of games that don't provide enough equipment
to be able to meet a game state that arises.  That is considered a flawed
condition.  Why not consider it the same with chess variants?  I am of the
belief that, if you will have a reserve and a large number of Queen level
pieces, then it makes sense to restrict how pawns promote.  So here, I
will go 'Fine' to having the possibility of 9 queens running around on a
board at the same time.  But is not explaining where the material for
gameplay will come from to account for this better than having a standard
to explain where the equipment comes from to do this?  
2. Regarding standards and creativity.  Is writing fiction not a creative
activity?  How effective would it be, if there wasn't standards for
language and grammar?  Also, if there wasn't a defined ZRF language for
Zillions, would we have much in the way of creativity expressed in this
area?
3. Open-source bullies?  Exactly how do these bullies cause there to be problems?  Do they point a gun at people's heads, or do their Internet equipment not work?

Looks like I may have to do a case for standards post.

Ok, on to the latest round of comments regarding what was posted:
1. I am NOT the one who unilaterally decides the standards, nor should
anyone else be the one to decide his.  My suggestion for dealing with the
the potential for 8 Queens is a PREFERENCE of mine, that I believe is
relevant when you start adding a wider arrange of pieces.  One can go
'well it is theoretically possible, but you never see it'.  You NEVER
see it?  When you are dealing with chess variants, where you can bend the
rules left and right, then the 'never' becomes more likely.  This is NOT
a big deal, just an observation I made, particularly when I ended up
looking at Seirawan Chess and saw that the use of reserves can lead to a
game where you could have issues when dealing with reserves and the
possibility of a wide range of pieces getting introduced to a game via
reserves.
2. I do agree the standards can't be enforced, unless it is in an IAGO,
FIDE, etc... setting where you have tournament rules.  I will say the lack
of having influence by associations has resulted in checkers having red and
black pieces on a red and black board (board and pieces have the same
colors).  The standards are tradition that is followed.  No one knows why,
but they do.  Standards can end up saving time for everyone and lay a level
of expectation.  By encouraging standards, we can accelerate the adoption
process of variants.  The also lend to knowing which side of the road to
walk on, for example.
3. Joe may be onto something with 'Tracks'.  We likely need to rework
it, but the idea of categories (aka Tracks) for variants, would be
helpful.
4. And this community has had an impact on the world of chess variants. 
May I suggest this community get in touch with the British Chess Variants
Society and see if we can begin discussions for recommendations for naming
conventions, and other things like mutators?  Get everyone involved with
this, and not just this side of the ocean.  Of course, if they refuse,
then that is their issue.  I know my discussing things with them broke
down when I had attempted this in relation to IAGO.  I am up for whatever
is come up with.  I would also have IAGO adopt whatever the findings
were.
5. There is no guarantee the findings would be perfect, or never change,
but I see it as a start.  We could end up doing a variation on the
Internet's Request for Comments system, for having recommendations.  

Ok, enough for now.  I have food and some TV to get to here in a bit.

On the standards issue again, maybe we can come up with an XML schema for
data transfer for Chess Variants or abstract strategy games in general. 
For Chess Variants, call it CVML (Chess Variants Markup Language).  For
abstract strategy games in general, we can go with something like IML
(IAGO Markup Language) or IASML (IAGO Abstract Strategy Markup Language). 
We then can use that format with this site.  Imagine someone comes up with
a PC game that plays chess variants, and acts as an interface.  With
CVML/IML/IASML you could have them connect into the Game Courier system
and give people a GUI to enter in their moves and get their moves off
here.  A CVML file could record all moves, all pieces involved, and so
on.

Again, some agreed to standards would help out a lot here.

CVML could be used by computer programs for saving data.  It also enables
that a PC GUI program that can interface with the Courier system here.

What you need is the Courier program to receive a file with the move
someone that someone wants to make, and output the results of the move to
the file.  The format it is in would matter.  CVML or IML/IAGML would
define the format.  Do this right, and the likes of ChessV and others
could interact with the Courier program.

As for specifics (aka how to implement), we need to discuss this further, and agree that it would be a good idea.

Well, at this point, maybe rules reffing could be done via the GUI
interface that would log in.  However, even outside of that, there may not
be a need now for it, just a program that can act as an easier to use
interface, and allow entering of moves, without needing to type.

Ok, several questions and comments:
1. When using Winboard, how do you use it?  Do you use it to log into the
CV websites, or enter in the current move manually, enter in your own
move, have it spit it back and then type it in here?
2. If Winboard works as I am thinking with chess, anyone know if it could
be expanded to cover other games, like checkers or Go?
3. CVML is merely a data structure for formatting data files so different
systems can understand them.  The format also makes these files easy to
understand.  The format explains what data should be where in the file. 
They also use XML stuff (CVML would be derived from XML) to also handle
formatting of web pages.
4. In regards to FEN, CVML could be used as a way to extend FEN and handle
more than FEN does.

Anyhow, these are my latest thoughts on this.  Thanks for the comments. 
Is it time that we break off a separate topic to discuss CVML?

Anyone know anything about the Universal Chess Interface?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Chess_Interface

Or the Chess Engine Communication Protocol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_Engine_Communication_Protocol

I am curious if we can find answers here.  I am asking about this, because I saw it on Wikipedia when looking up Winboard.

Another perspective on this Standards discussion is the Rosetta Stone comes
to mind:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

What is agreed to on regarding the FEN, data transfer protocols, and other
things can act like a Rosetta Stone allowing a diverse community to
communicate with one another.

Thanks for the info on Winboard.  I am wondering if it can be extended to
cover other games.  As of now, if you check the IAGO Clubhouse site out,
there are over 900 games available to play through the partners of the
website: http://www.IAGOClubhouse.com

Next up is to have a way for people to access the websites on there, and
play by means of a GUI.

The games I am looking for now are abstract strategy games.  Not cards or
dominoes, but games with boards and pieces.  Like what you find on here,
SuperDuperGames, Little Golem, and Richard's PBEM server.  

The problem with a dedicated GUI is that every game of a different type is going to require its own GUI.  This would be like taking Zillions and breaking it up into a different program for each and every game you play.  The idea is to have a Zillions type program which would enable people to play one another over the Internet, or with AI plug-ins.  It would enable a program like Axiom, for example, to be able to have an interface to play it.

I will say that, while I am not looking at abstract strategy games now, I do believe if we can come up with a system for recording and transferring game state data between environments/programs that can be extended to include cards, dominoes, and anything else that is a tabletop game, we will have done the world a big favor.  Note, the standards don't need to be fully used by the CV community, but can be used by others.

I would like to comment regarding what is gained about having a common GUI
for multiple game types.  You can have one GUI that then could be used to
record keep and capture whatever games people play.

Secondarily, may I suggest that, if you come up with a common format for
data transfer, and recording moves and changes of game states, even if you
had different GUIs for each game, the server end would only have to worry
about one formatting of data to communicate between the GUI and the
server.  So, you come up with a data formatting and transfer format, and
leave it at that.  Eventually, even if there are different GUIs initially,
someone then can come up with a Zillions type GUI that could interface with
all environments.

I will be posting an initial attempt at some standard for this in a
separate message.  This standard would end up working with chess,
checkers, Go and anything else abstract strategy game.  It, of course,
would need work.  Besides this, I believe one could extend it to cover
cardgames and boardgames even.  Think of it as a FEN for changing game
states.