Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

1 CV out of 150 CVs. Maybe Ralph Betza will reincarnate as 100-square designer. Not likely but we can hope. This Outrigger is about the only Betza not on 64 squares. 150 CVs of Betza not 3-dimensional are 64 squares and nothing else. Staying exclusively with 64 squares was Betza's downfall. His obligatory ''variants'' at the end of each write-up do not change the board size either. It seems Gilman picked up where Betza left off. Gilman is the infinite-possibilities Betza. Scroll down Gilman's inventor's list and the sizes are all over the map: 72, 80, 90, 96, 100, 144, and plenty of dainty smaller than 64 ones too. Instead Betza's reads like the phone book pages of ''Jones'': 646464...

Betza only tentatively goes to 80 squares here the one time in that there is not even a new piece-type for the 2 extra files. I agree insofar as that he just made up his mind to stay on the standard board. Unfortunately, probably 98% of the millions of chess players -- and potential converts to some cvs for a change -- who choose, or were taught standard f.i.d.e., rather than Xiangqi, also still think 64 squares are the only significant board. Betza's cvs' sizing is only one small not that important issue on the general question of proliferation of cvs that get less and less actual play. Of around 6000 cvs in CVPage and the print 'Encyclopedia Chess Variants', Betza has 150 and Gilman 250. Their 400 are still not yet 10% percent of the total. Betza's cvs are the more important than Gilman's, as of now, because of so many concepts for Mutators in Betza 64-square cvs that other designers can, and have, switch/ed over and adapt/ed to 80, 100, 120 squares. Betza's contribution to cvs are ideas in articles for Mutators, for augmentation of (very sensible) pieces, and for equalizing values of entire armies. That the embodiments always happen to be 64 squares is secondary. Betza was just comfortable with 64 squares, the same way of Karpov or Kasparov, or Anand, Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik and Topolov.