Single Comment

Charles, thanks for the comments on IAGO Chess System.  I do believe those are some of the objectives.  More work needs to be done to make it so.  Also, thanks for the reply here.  It makes sense to have it attached to the IAGO Chess System.

I am all in favor of coming up with some 'Universal' chess variant kit that has a larger board.  I would actually like one under the IAGO banner that could encompass a wide range of games.  There are several issues though that are a potential barriers to making this so (You need to keep in mind FIDE folk when proposing anything):
1. The availability to purchase such equipment.  Rationalizing people can make their own boards and so on, isn't going to cut it with most people.  Most people aren't interested in arts and crafts projects to do their games.  Saying you can import it isn't going to cut it either.  People need things more immediate.
2. You have to take an evolutionary starting point to get the FIDE crowd interested in variants.  I am of the belief that the use of reserve pieces with drops and gating is the least disruptive way to do this.  IAGO, Seirawan and Alternative all provide ways to get new pieces into regular chess, without disrupting the starting point.  Of course, Seirawan is proprietary and the designers don't want it tweaked in any way, so I use it as a hypothetical here.  I am suspect that the FIDE crowd wants to go with a larger board now.  At least NOT from the perspective of investing in new equipment.  The movement has to be subtle, but also opening up the doorway for variants.  On this point, I think we need to do an actual survey of what they want, rather than doing presumptive speculation on what they want. 

I also want to add that Seirawan, IAGO and Alternative all can be adapted to a wide range of chess variants. Like the Beyond Chess board, there are more universal in how they work, thus are compatible with a range of games.  This compatibility in approach is what is needed.  Things like this, and mutators, are what matters.  My take on the board is that, taking a wargames approach, it should be nothing more than a 'map' for a scenario.  The board shouldn't be the end all and be all answer for anything.  It is just a part of a larger picture.  The 8x8 board is readily available and comfortable with people, so I say this should be the starting point.  Let me add here also that IAGO Chess (and Alternative to some extent) are able to strengthen Chess960, by addressing any weaknesses in configuration of pieces.


As for my 'next chess', I am looking for an evolutionary path for it to grow and continue to adapt, that would encompass the fullness of the variant world, in the most rational way.  In this Chess960 is part of the solution, as is the use of reserves that enter via drops and gating.  You also throw in mutators in this. And, players can go beyond with new boards also.  The idea is to loosen things up, but provide a feedback loop on what works, that would bring the variant and FIDE crowd together.

In regards to the various projects, I want 'The Next Chess' to be a separate project.  I had discussed 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project as a place for this.  The results are what IAGO can adopt.  IAGO Chess (the game) is an example now, definitely subject to modification.  It was an attempt to do Capablanca chess in IAGO, through the use of drops and gating, as a compromise.  There is also the classification approach (IAGO Chess System) which I believe should be expanded and tweaked, 'The Chess of Tomorrow' project would fit into this.

Also, don't diminish the 9 queen problem.  It gets worse the more you have promotion and an ever wider variety of pieces.  Chess players, FIDE folk, play with a fixed number of pieces.  You start bring variant pieces in, then you have issues.  The issue is that the salt shaker is no longer a queen, but an ever-growing number of pieces.  The variant crowd does have a chance to find a practical solution for this in some form.

What we need to do now is have action.  We need to start doing things.  We need to make variants more financially viable, and available to people, and have it interesting.  In this comes standards.  We need to increase the pool of games played, and see how the interplay works.  Cutting the Gordian Knot of piece values would be a big help also, and figuring out how to balance the unknown would be a big plus.  Throw in here a base of equipment used, with standardized names, and equipment standards, and what kind of boards apply, and you are on to something.

And in this, if there is decent involvement and results, you can have IAGO get behind whatever the findings are.  That is one of the roles of IAGO, to help bring about consensus.