Single Comment

H.G., but then you have a bias toward 'Mad Queen Chess'. Those who love
Fide-chess, which I do, will find my variants interesting. For instance, I
think it's very interesting to investigate the properties of the extended
castling rule, as in Castle Chess, whether it will bring new life into the
King's gambit, etc. To introduce a single new piece, as only change, is
also interesting, because new strategical and tactical motives will
surface. 

It is evident, to me, that most chess variant enthusiasts are very
interested in rather extravagant creations. I have nothing against it
because it is quite creative, as such (even if the particular variant
isn't practicable). So it is almost like an art-form.

However, I take much more interest in the actual *variations* on the board,
tactical motives, etc. This is the *invisible* aspect of chess variants. To
manually alter the setup, as in Alternative Chess, changes opening strategy
to something completely new. If you are very interested in chess openings,
and have crafted variations and stored them in TascBase and Chess
Assistant, then such setup changes become very interesting. 

There is also another important aspect to modest variants. The hardliners
in the chess community will never abandon chess for any of the extravagant
variants, but they will find some of the modest variants interesting. Some
modest variant will prove the future of chess, because Fide-chess is
becoming more and more computerized. So I might be doing an important work,
with all my modest suggestions.
/Mats