💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Aug 21, 2008 12:28 AM UTC:
Charles, I think Dipole Chess exposes taxonomy issues regarding chess variants on here (and the variant community). What you see in Dipole Chess can, on the one hand, be seen as a bunch of new pieces being added. On the other hand, it is a simple removal of a few rules to Normal chess, that could be summed up as a mutator. One could play with mutators, have the Dipole Chess rule in the waiting, and then use it to change the dynamics. One could also use it as a game condition that kicks in to reduce draws in Normal Chess.
Do you see how Dipole Chess can be argued to be nothing but a simple mutator ('simple' as in how it affects the rules, NOT in its impact)? I see it that way. I actually am a bit hesitant to give it the full name 'Dipole Chess' as if it is some radically new game. It is merely a rules tweak, arguably the same that Near Chess is.
In this, I believe Dipole Chess does call for work in the taxonomy department for chess variants, so we can have a bit more standardization, and allow for more rule variations to be played, while still playing a base game of a sort.
I do hope others care to join in and debate this subject here. I will agree that Dipole Chess ends up coming off more different than even a game on a 10x10 grid with a few new variant/fantasy) pieces (and I do believe we should also come up with a standardize name for this category rather than 'fairy').
Charles, I think Dipole Chess exposes taxonomy issues regarding chess variants on here (and the variant community). What you see in Dipole Chess can, on the one hand, be seen as a bunch of new pieces being added. On the other hand, it is a simple removal of a few rules to Normal chess, that could be summed up as a mutator. One could play with mutators, have the Dipole Chess rule in the waiting, and then use it to change the dynamics. One could also use it as a game condition that kicks in to reduce draws in Normal Chess. Do you see how Dipole Chess can be argued to be nothing but a simple mutator ('simple' as in how it affects the rules, NOT in its impact)? I see it that way. I actually am a bit hesitant to give it the full name 'Dipole Chess' as if it is some radically new game. It is merely a rules tweak, arguably the same that Near Chess is. In this, I believe Dipole Chess does call for work in the taxonomy department for chess variants, so we can have a bit more standardization, and allow for more rule variations to be played, while still playing a base game of a sort. I do hope others care to join in and debate this subject here. I will agree that Dipole Chess ends up coming off more different than even a game on a 10x10 grid with a few new variant/fantasy) pieces (and I do believe we should also come up with a standardize name for this category rather than 'fairy').