Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I expect the Next Chess, if there ever is one, will be a static set of
rules. As I understand it, the Next Chess would be a Chess variant that
usurps the place of Chess in terms of popularity, tournament play, 
organizations of people dedicated to playing the game, and established
book knowledge. I don't see this happening unless the game has a static
set of rules. Moreover, with this kind of infrastructure in place, there
would be strong forces of uniformity in play. The organizations would
enforce strict tournament rules, the literature on the game would assume a
fixed set of rules, and fixed rules would be required to underpin a
meaningful rating system. To become as popular as Chess, most of the
people the game would have to appeal to are those who are looking for a
game that is simple to learn and difficult to master. A game with fixed
rules is easier to learn than a game with fluid rules, and it is easier to
measure mastery of a game when the rules are fixed. People who like Chess
variants are the minority, and there is no need to appeal to our interest
in variety and novelty to win over most of the people who might take to a
Chess successor. What is needed is an organization dedicated to promoting
the new game. The organizational efforts would work best if the game has
fixed rules. If the organization allowed fluidity in the rules, it would
likely splinter into factions that prefer different versions. A static set
of rules, strictly enforced, would be what the organization needs to remain
focused and unified in its strength while trying to challenge the place of
Chess.

With this said, I am not personally interested in trying to usurp the
place of Chess. I am more interested in Chess variants, in part because
they don't have the same kind of infrastructure behind them that Chess
has. Expert Chess players depend a lot on book knowledge, and there is a
whole lot of that to be had if you care to study it. I'm uninterested in
studying book knowledge and mastering Chess. My interest is in playing
games that remain games of skill, because neither player has access to any
extensive book knowledge.

Greetings Fergus.  I just wanted to comment on several things, based upon
my reading over what has been written on here, and the history of chess
variants, including abstract strategy games as a whole.
1. At any given time, I see there will be a set of rules that will
represent a set way to play.  There will be standardization in these
rules.  What I have suggested is that variants be factored in and
standardized into this.  Do you have objections to these being in the next
chess: Reserve pieces (enter by drops and gating), variable set ups,
shuffles, mutators, multiple board layouts? 
2. Beyond just the current static set of rules, will be a framework for
managing change, with the full expectation that the rules will adapt and
change over time.  Ignoring this reality ignores the reality of abstract
strategy games as a whole: Any game with a static set of fixed rules, the
moment the rules are written down and played, is putting an expiration
date in place.  The game will push to be solved, particularly when there isn't luck or hidden information that allows the game to map to the psyche of the players who play them.  Any living game makes changes.  If it didn't, then the world would still be playing Sharanj.
3. If you don't have crossover appeal to the FIDE chess community to
offer something that would appeal to them, you aren't going to draw much
of a crowd.  And this will lead me up to my next point.  There is NO WAY
the Next Chess will even get remotely as popular as chess, without the
current chess community picking it up.  It just isn't going to happen. 
Next Chess is going to have to be able to be picked up by current chess
players.  I believe, in some sense, the Next Chess has to be an evolutionary next step for chess, that would be like the way FIDE chess is an extension of Shatranj.
4. If you want to create an organization with a limited shelf life, then
create an organization dedicated exclusively to this new game.  Look
towards fighting an uphill battle to promote your game, and try to compete
against commercial games out there that are funded better, and try to get
the attention of the world.  There are multiple examples of this
happening, and the organization fading away.  They had their 15 minute of
fame and then they were gone, and the game become a non-played relic that
now rests in here.  The reason for IAGO being IAGO (and it is an extension
of an idea in the 1990s to start a chess variants association) is to
provide support and promotion for a WIDE RANGE of games, so they all stand
a better chance of making.  IAGO is about the best shot now of the Next
Chess ever coming about.  If the CV site, IAGO and the British Chess
Variants Society get together and work on the Next Chess project, we can
get something.  
5. We are going to have to come up with a meaningful ratings system for
people playing a range of games anyhow here.  The single game approach,
without cross-linking hasn't worked at all.  
6. IAGO is fully dedicated to helping whatever the Next Chess is, and help
it catch on.  Only way we will get this is going a multigame organization,
so that all the games have a shot to make it, and the best rise to the
top.  And only by having a large group who plays multiple games, will
there be enough people to test what will work vs what won't.
7. The idea of 'multiple rules' is to have a single framework that
allows for customizing of initial conditions and game conditions, as
scenarios, they way they do in ASL.  Unless you believe that you can
somehow have a game with fixed positions, and no changes EVER in the
board, and no mutators, and just some set of pieces hat never change, and
no reserves, and no formations, and no shuffles, and that it would work
and catch on and supplant FIDE chess some day, I believe you need to
account for all this, in a standardized set of rules.  I personally don't
think something that is static everything isn't going to appeal to the
variant community at all.  It may get played sometime in a pool of games,
but not be the main game people focus on.  Among the FIDE folk, it would
seem weird.  And among people not playing chess now, it would seem odd. 
Of course, you can try to argue that it be easier than chess. But at what
cost to depth will you do to have that happen?
8. Another reason for accounting for a range of things that modify games
is to have an environment rich enough that play of a range of
configurations can help the beer configurations rise to the top.  Short of
this by experience approach, you are looking a chess in an ivory tower with
an egghead shouting out to the world how they have 'THE NEXT CHESS'. 
Yes, we are going to need standardization here, but this doesn't mean
that one game is going to be it.  In this hubris of people thinking they
know best, I could argue 'Near Chess' and 'Near vs Normal' and other
formations, are THE BEST thing to start with when doing The Next Chess. 
The opening book is more varied than FIDE, and the rules less complicated
(there is a way for people chess faster by it).  Besides this, you can mix
formations to wreck book memorization, while having stability in line
structure.  And you can play it NOW without any need for special
equipment.  Now, you want me to stop shoveling the bull, and acknowledge
other things that also lend to the experience: reserves, mutators,
shuffles and different board types?  I don't want to shovel bull.  I will, however, say that Near Chess brings multiple formations to the mix, but it alone isn't the answer.

Anyhow that is my take on this.  And thanks for the feedback.

Larry, thanks for the feedback.

I do believe the CV site does have the elements here needed for the Next
Chess.  I do think the next chess should be too weird.

Joyce constructs an interesting sentence, ''The concept of a next chess
is fascinating, precisely because it cannot/will not occur.'' Resistance
to change can be cliched or instructive. When Mad Queen emerged from
Chaturanga-Shatranj, Europe still used Roman numerals exclusively. ''Those
responsible for accounts wished to preserve the Roman system because, say
'v' added to 'iii' gave the sign 'viii', checkable for honesty or
accuracy, whereas 5 plus 3 gave '8', which as a sign bore no similarity
to '3' or '5'.'' Right after adoption of Hindu-Arabic numeral system, 
during the 1540's came the sign '=', chosen '''bicause noe 2.
thynges, can be moare equalle' than such parallel lines.'' Switch from Roman to Hindu-Arabic occurred in Europe after Chaturanga-Shatranj had been transformed with Regina Rabiosa at Italy in
1490's.  Chess may have led the way in some sense breaking cultural
deadlock beyond her accepted purview.  --both quotations from Ivor Grattan-Guinness 'Norton History
of the Mathematical Sciences' 1997

Hopefully Joyce will analyze Eurasian also as he did Modern and Mastodon.
The three are held up to nominate as troika to co-bill for theoretical
next chess. Joyce asks at end of Mastodon critique,  ''Are there any
general design principles coming out of all this that are or can be
generally agreed upon?'' How about Pawns? OrthoPawn that developed with
the New Chess of the 1500's needs no tampering. Two-step one time only
and diagonal capture have no possible improvement. If there are ten ranks,
the Pawn just logically gets three-step option too. Everyone can agree on
that, neither Berolina nor Rococo Pawns necessary for any new and fixed
alteration of F.I.D.E. standard 8x8.

The 'two-step' rule for the Mad Queen Pawn was to speed up the opening
game and the development of the Pawn structure on the field. Thus 'en
passant' to return the right of capture to the opponent.

It should not be necessary to give it a 'three-step' privilege if the
Pawns are located to the third rank of the 10 rank field. In addition,
with an increase of power pieces, especially leapers, any multiple-step
privilege of the Pawn could be re-evaluated.

And with a large number of power pieces, a developer might utilize the
Shogi Pawn. Forcing the players to devote a number of pieces to protect
them.

''Shatranj is a horrible game which drags on forever and ends in Draw 2
out of 3 times,'' says H. G. Muller at ''Camel'' piece definition only today. I agree, though obviously there would even be defenders of
that very old style 8x8. (Do not forget GM Kramnik dramatically playing similar Makruk, that most of us would characterize like Muller does Shatranj, for all Makruk's historical content.) Likers of Shogi would tolerate Shatranj more than
others, both being slow games. Usually, stronger pieces lead to
designer's enhancing Pawns, from Morrison's Big Battle to Macdonald's Omega.
OrthoChess was no exception. Besides speeding up the game, stronger Bishop
and Queen meant instinctively they had immediately to strengthen Pawn too.
For NextChess topic here, Hutnik is saying to think of what would appeal to
OrthoChess regulars, who rule the world of Chess, and might even convince
some of them. Unanalyzed-lately Eurasian, the third entry, is almost unique in balancing
logical Cannon hopper with Canon hopper, called Arrow there. Important
leapers beyond Knight number only Camel, Zebra, Trebouchet, and Tripper.
What others are there to consider?  So, either hoppers or bifurcation
pieces may be more promising for Next Chesses track one. Anyway, Duniho once singled out
Eurasian as it were Track One after ''NextChess,'' rather than Track Two (such as Rococo, Philosophers, Altair).

Outside of wanting NextChess to be an evolutionary next step off FIDE
Chess, why should what is involved with NextChess just be 'one track'? 
Why not have a version that will handle western and eastern derivatives of
Shatranj/Chaturanga, and enable players to pit their army of pieces of
choice against another army, using a particular set of rules for
balancing?  

In other words, why not let what people personally play be able to impact
what the community does.  Have something more like Magic: The Gathering
than Bridge in regards to how things are handled.

Something that helps integrate East and West would be of immense value here, as you could draw from players of both games.

Suit yourself.
Actually, this very thread already lists my particular choice of ''track twos'' 25.September.2008: Rococo,
Eight-Stone, Switching(I), Sissa(I), Altair, Giant King, Tetrahedral,
Weave & Dungeon, Jetan, Quintessential(I), AltOrthHex, Philosophers, and
Hanga Roa. However, the three with the symbol ''I'' could also be
track one -- appealing at once to chess-smart outsiders. The argument would
diverge from Hutnik's not in the class-one or -two distinction, but in
saying it is time for specifics. It ought to be chess variantists prerogative for
all the acquired knowhow to begin putting forth specifics more vis-a-vis general principles. 
The above are my 13 track 2; the 3 are my specific track 1, more the subject matter here: Modern,
Mastodon, Eurasian.

If I waited a little longer, I wouldn't have to do this at all - most of
what I'd say has already been said. My discussion of Fergus Duniho's
Eurasian Chess will be a bit more subjective than those of Maura's or
Winther's games. 

First, I like 10x10 boards. There's some more room to maneuver. Also, the
advantage a 10x10 has over the 8x10 is that it's square. It maintains the
same overall shape and balance as traditional chess. The board isn't
'funny-looking'. But it may be too big. The 10x10's disadvantage is
that it's now 'too far' across the board. The 8x10 maintained the same
separation between the sides as the standard 8x8, giving a comfort edge.
But more on this below.

Second, I like what Fergus has done with the setup. I believe he has
properly used time and space on this board. 
 * By moving the pawn rows up 1, the 4-square separation between the sides
is returned. This is more important to chess than it appears at first
glance. Count the pawn moves, most and least, to cross between the sides.
Even with the 3-step, pawns back requires 4 steps to cross at least, and 6
at most. It may be 5 steps, too. Standard and Eurasian offer 2 identical
options, either 3 [least] or 4 [most]. Generalized pawn play and number of
pawn moves required remains the same. Conclusion: on 10x10, the better
position for the pawns for a next chess is up on the 3rd rank of a 10x10. 
* The starting piece density and placement is good. Giving 2 rows to the
pieces allows 2 pairs of 'Asian' pieces to be added to the standard
chesspiece mix, when only 1 pair would fit with the pawns back. It allows
the knights to be moved up one square at start, which to a good extent
balances out the knight's being slower on 10x10. It allows far more
tactical flexibility, both to the designer building setups and to the
player maneuvering pieces. [grin! Also lets you hang your pawns out to dry
easier.] 

Finally, I might quibble a little about the exact initial setup, but I've
never played this game. And because it uses 4 pieces/side I don't design
with and am not all that comfortable using in a game, I don't have a
really great feel for how this game will play. Eight leapers running
around in a game with 4 rooks, 4 bishops, and 2 queens is a lot of
firepower. More than I'd personally want to use. I suspect that once the
'new players' get a bit of practice with the leapers, they should love
the game. I think Fergus has achieved his purpose here. I don't think
this is quite 'next chess', but it is a good step past the limitations
now appearing in FIDE. Of the 3 games George has proposed, I find this one
to be the best 'game after chess' as is.

Hello Rich,

I was not stating my own preferences for what should go into a Next Chess.
I was making predictions on what it would take for something to become a
Next Chess. Moreover, I have strong doubts that a Next Chess will ever
rise to prominence in the near future. You speak of Next Chess being an
evolutionary change to Chess. Many evolutionists are uniformitarians, who
believe that evolutionary change happens gradually. I'm an evolutionist
but not a uniformitarian. I think catastrophic evolution, as argued for by
Velikovsky, is more likely. On this view, evolution happens primarily after
extinction events, which leaves niches for new species to evolve into. For
example, other animals are not evolving to become as intelligent as
humans, because we dominate that niche, but if the human race died out,
another species would become more likely to evolve intelligence like ours.
With regard to Chess, Chess has carved out a niche for itself that, by its
occupation of its niche, makes it extremely hard for any other game to
fill the same niche. I applaud any work you're doing toward testing and
promoting quality Chess variants, but I think it would take an extinction
event to knock Chess out of its niche and prepare the way for a Next
Chess. Basically, if civilization collapsed to the point where most people
forgot Chess, perhaps from nuclear war or the 'coming global superstorm'
or something, then there would be room for a successor to make way. Of
course, as much as I would be thrilled to see my own game of Eurasian
Chess, which George Duke has mentioned as one of his top three picks for a
successor, approach the popularity of Chess, I think the collapse of
civilization would be too high a price to pay for that. The best way short
of this is for an organization to promote some variant in much the same way
that FIDE promotes Chess. I have serious doubts this would succeed, but I
do think its the best shot at a Next Chess short of waiting for the
collapse of civilization to kill off Chess.

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.

FIDE has chosen to promote the Mad Queen variant. One of the goals of the
organization was to advocate a standard form of play. They could chose to
promote something else.

Of course the organization is made up of a lot of people who have
dedicated their lives to the Mad Queen variant, and they will be highly
reluctant to place all that effort in jeopardy if they had to compete with
a new form of play.

If FIDE does not adapt, little by little they will discover that their
tournaments are slowly becoming irrelevant. And simply 'fixing' the Mad
Queen variant will not be sufficient.

And since the rise of the video game, board games have seen a decrease
among the general public. (It would be interesting to see the actual sales
figures for the last twenty years, though CCGs might have countered any
loss.) So, the expectation of the popular rise of a New Chess will not be
easily realized.

It will take a large organization, with a large advertising budget, to
create the necessary trend in the short run. The superiority of the game
will need to be demonstrated by highly ranked and popular Mad Queen
players(and what's in it for them?).

Is anyone here ready to publicly challenge a Grandmaster to a game of
their favorite variant? (I have the image of a masked woodpusher screaming
challenges at the camera.) It would be best if they were able to actually
win the chosen game.

Next Chess is almost key topic in brief Anand interview. Vishy Anand
interviewed 1.October.2008 at ChessBase is asked about Draw Death and answers:
''Actually I was always pessimistic. Ten years ago I said that 2010
would be the end, Chess would be exhausted. But it is not true, chess will
not die so quickly. Will it happen in 2015? I don't think so. For every
door the computers have closed they have opened a new one.''

For year 2009 I named Modern(9x9), Mastodon(8x10), and Eurasian(10x10). For
trio of Next Chesses to be played as frequently as possible for year 2010,
I nominate Centennial chess(10x10), Templar chess (72 squares), and
Unicorn Great chess(10x10). What recommends all these is they are immediately
learned by all levels, with only couple of them more difficult for someone not
already somewhat familiar with Xiangqi or CVs.

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?

Rich Hutnik wrote:
'... 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...'

Firstly, I find the tone of this remark somewhat offensive.
Secondly, what is wrong with artistic expression? It could be argued that chess is an art and that this art in common with other arts such as dance or music or literature can be expressed in many ways:

• playing a game of chess
• composing a chess problem
• composing a fairy chess problem
• designing a chess variant

Creating Chess variants is a form of artistic expression, but it is more
analogous to architecture than to the more purely expressive arts, such as
painting. Architecture is constrained by the need for buildings to be
stable, livable shelters, and game design is constrained by the need for
games to be fun, balanced, and playable, among other considerations. But
beyond the utilitarian purposes behind architecture and game design there
remains room for artistic expression. As one of the individuals with games
on this site, I find Hutnick's 'Arteests' comment offensive. Personally,
I don't see how coming up with standards would contribute in any way to
bringing about the Next Chess. Perhaps it has something to do with
Hutnick's own vision of the Next Chess as a framework rather than a
strict set of rules, but as I already explained, I don't share that
vision. If he wants us to do something, he should explain why it is
important rather than insult us for not doing it.

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.

If we are talking about organizations promoting what they consider the
successor of Chess, again Superchess comes to mind. (
http://www.superchess.nl ) Although this is pretty much a one-person
organization, they do organize tournaments, sell piece sets, and advertize
their activities in Chess clubs all around the country. Due to my
involvement they now also can offer on their website a PC program that can
play Superchess (so far only on the Dutch pages; they are still updating
the English part of their website).

They only operate in a limited geographical region, though: The
Netherlands and Belgium. A FIDE IM is participating in the upcoming Dutch
Open Championship, (Oct 12), and indeed won the event 2 years ago.

I have registered for the Championship to see how it fares.

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.

Names of pieces have changed constantly, whether shifting languages or
being applied thematically. Even the Mad Queen variant does not utilize
the original names of its pieces.

Creating a nomeclature standard will not guarantee absolute compliance.
How will such be enforced? The Chess Police?

If this is simply the fear that another developer will take a proprietary
item and, just by re-naming it, attempt to lay claim, vigilance is the
answer. Part of owning a copyright or patent is enforcing it. The
paperwork does not magically force the world into acceptance, it merely
provides a reference point of legal proof. And some countries do not fully
honor the copyrights and patents of others.

And obtaining a copyright or patent does not guarantee the ability to
capitalize. That is the sole responsibility of the holder.

Keeping track of the various names of pieces, not to mention the vast
potential of movement types, will prove to be an arduous task.

Hopefully there will not be those who simply take an un-used form of
movement and give it a name, without regard to actual application in a
game. But there really is nothing to prevent this.

Sorry to post off-topic here, but I have been trying to send e-mail to
Fergus, but it seems that the POP-server at chessvariants.org is no
longer
working. So as Fergus was posting here, I hope to catch his attention. I
wanted to submit an entry for the piececlopedia.

A second question that I am not sure where to direct:
I am looking for the e-mail address of Bill Angell, the author of the
Capablanca version of GNU Chess (of which the executable is available
from
the CV website). This because I wanted to ask him for the source code.
But
the CVpage says 'contact us' for Bill's e-mail address. Does
CVpages still have a valid e-mail address for Bill Angell? The
cais.cais.com address was not working.