George Duke wrote on Sat, Nov 1, 2008 03:48 PM UTC:
By beginning to organize, it gets to where the OrthoChessists can be ignored
as obsolete, not vice versa. // Do CVs need absolute algebra? One to which
all CV Rules-sets would be reducible. All combinations of relation,
connectivity, proposition and associated laws (rules), would mitigate
cataloguing (NextChess2 -- and now necessary next NextChess3) and discover relations otherwise
obscure. Variantists, even prolificists, are really algebraists. Their
building blocks are Methods of movement and Mutators. Beyond algebra, the
roots of unity: group theory. Different mutators, even apparently opposite
in their effects, are found to be the same in the over-all structure. CVs of origination far apart by dissonant individuals and cultures will have
been determined to be one, or of the same, with more sophistication.
Isomorphic. By one reckoning (this thread 21.August.2008) we tested and
find Shatranj and OrthoChess are 4 steps removed from each other, whereas
Rococo is 10 steps away from Carrera 8x10. Since there is no possibility of playing even minuscule fraction of proposed Rules-combinations, probability itself may be the ingredient missing for claim of progress. That is, because each CVer follows somewhat predictable subjective pattern, in design, one puts up a ''new'' CV without an inventor (or just do not look), and usually it has some characteristic stamp of whomever. We know at once who is doing it, muddy the water, this time responsible for the latest fashion, or infraction, or infarction. Yet since we cannot be sure, it becomes just another part of the equation. Most likely, every CV is itself an Error message, or
anonymously of unknown origin.