Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Your previous comment seems to assume that all inventors don't play their own variants.

I tried Omega, Gothic/Capablanca versions/ Seirawan and a host of others. Omega is by far the most playable game.
If anything it is hard for me to determine which is more playable among Omega and some of my games (though I would of course be biased to lean towards mine). But MANY players have also played Omega and compared to Chess and their impressions are far more favorable than for any other variant.

To move away to more open source type games: Birds and Ninjas, Stealth Ninja Chess are a few of my offerings with similar balance and ideas.

Take a look at this item. Omega Chess already has high caliber play testers.

frozen, I wanted to comment here on what I have said.

I am not trying to argue that designers don't play their variants, just am saying that proposed ideas need to be played before a larger audience to see how well they work.  Again, more playing by larger numbers, and less merely posting ideas.  To this end, I suggest games be broken down to variant elements and people try to 'roll their own'.  Maybe in this, the evolutionary path of chess can not be blocked.

Rich, 

I do see the IAGO system as beneficial. After all it does cover almost all types of chess variants. However, I do not think it is a good idea to point all to the direction of 8x8 variants/Seirawan  etc. It is best to let the person decide for him/her self what to look into. 

The problem right now is that the chess variant people are mostly inventors not just play-testers. If there were a sufficient number of players (chess players preferably ) to try out the different variants looking into ones they like the best - we would have something. 
The pot luck tourney is good esp if it can attract more non-inventors as well . 
My concern is all this talk about rule changes/draw problem etc is going to turn off the average chess player and thus will not bring new people into playing the variants. And even though 'draw issue/rule changes' are only a small fraction of chess variants - the remaining variants will too be ignored. 

I prefer a more open method of promotion - many new ideas categorized with no preference for either. A Chess variant could be an alternative game or a proposed rule fix - it is up to the players to decide which they prefer. 


Personally, I think chess players would be interested in an alternative game not a 'rule fix' that would replace chess. 

anyway just my thoughts ..)

Hello Charles.  For some reason, I am feeling that this thread should be part of the IAGO Chess System game, and not Omega Chess :-).

What will be in IAGO Chess, will end up having to be decided by consensus.  I actually only push for ONE thing, the restriction on promotion, because of the problematic issues that arises when you start adding more pieces to chess besides the Queen.  Do you want a flipped rook to be considered a 'Jester' piece that can be used to represent anything in the game?  There are issues I see with physical pieces if you don't add a restriction on promoting.  One may prefer to have a wider range, but explain how it is able to be done practically.  Let's say we have a Cardinal, Cannon, Marshall, and Amazon all in reserve, and then you want to promote a pawn to a piece.  How do you have it so you would have two Amazons around?  You end up declaring a flipped rook anything?  This is the issue I see regarding pawn promotion not being restricted.  One can say, 'Wait, we just play electronic version on CV website, and we are set'.  Ok, exactly how many people will you get to play here if they want to play chess?  And when do you exactly create a market for new pieces?

By the way, all that is asked with the 'restriction' anyhow, is that whomever decides to design a chess variant be able to have physical equipment map to the rules.  You don't have it so someone can bring in pieces into the game the equipment doesn't handle.  Like, do we force someone to have to use a salt shaker as a piece because you are missing a second piece?  Pretty much account for all the needed pieces, and don't require players to make stuff up.  At least be forthright to tell a person they have to flip a rook to be your piece in question.  Please let me know why this is not a preferred approach.

The basic idea of the IAGO Chess System is to start with normal chess as the base game, and then provide a migration path to deviate.  Why would you go beyond an 8x8 board as your board?  Are such boards readily available?  People can be free to choose, but how about we have some standards by which the conversation can be provided?  What you see here with your comment about not enough play-testers relates to this.

Also the reason for an evolutionary approach to chess, and 'the next chess' was to break the 'solved' issue with chess, that could cause the audience to end up dissolving over time.  I believe it would be beneficial to have a middle ground between the variant community and the normal chess community.