Single Comment

One of the things I'd like to look at in piece design is just how pieces
are used, and why it [piece design] is done. I believe there is a clear
difference between designing pieces and designing groups of pieces to be
used in one game. And there is another difference if themed pieces are
designed as a series of games. The best example of this is undoubtedly
Betza's Chess with Different Armies different armies. Using the same 8x8
board, he created several 'equal but different' armies. Each army has
its own theme, and they are [more or less] equally balanced against each
other. 

So, rather than being 'just' piece creation, Betza had a theme that ran
through several games, and the pieces were merely individual expressions
of the overarching idea. I will argue that my own series of shatranj
variants is similar, although I certainly do not claim such lofty goals as
Ralph was shooting for. I got dissatisfied with the weakest pieces in
historic shatranj, and started thinking of ways to 'correct the
problem'. Modern Shatranj was fun, and it got me thinking about
shortrange leapers, but by itself was pure piece design. Great Shatranj
was also initially a 'piece design' game, but it evolved away from being
just a place to showcase 2 nifty pieces. Every game after that in the
series was deliberately designed as part of an examination of 2 things:
shatranj-like pieces of steadily increasing power, and
a different history of the evolution of shatranj, an alternate reality, as
Graeme Neatham said, where shatranj evolved away from, instead of toward,
today's western [FIDE] chess. 

How good are they? Betza's CwDA idea was outstanding, and I will not
presume to judge any individual army. My shatranj games fall between good
and excellent. I think the idea behind them was excellent, but I think the
best game in the series by far is Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, designed by
David Paulowich [another prolificist]. That is a truly excellent game, and
better than any of mine.