Single Comment

This is the obvious place to answer Mats questions/objections from the
following post on the game Cataclysm:
'I see no point in this, as this variant is virtually unplayable. The
tactical capacity of short-range-pieces is such that this takes too long
to play. Could somebody please explain the credo behind these constructs?
Are they to be regarded pieces of art, or what? Why not settle for more
modest constructs?
/Mats'
On the CV wiki, there is a discussion [aka: argument] on the definition of
chess. It's not entirely serious, and seems to indicate that, in defining
'chess', we are actually stating our own views of what chess is/could
be/should be. We apparently define ourselves more than chess. You see
chess, or chess variants to be more precise, as something to be played on
a small board with about 15-20 pieces per side, if I understand you
correctly. What would you consider the size limits of playability, and
why?