Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Betza on Ultima variants:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=237
The following Betza looks at history past and future.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=513 
Here coincidentally the challenge I just raised exists by Betza, to construct different fool's mates:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=508
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=507

And Crooked Queen is a Piececlopedia but there are more alternatives: 
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=2074

Betza in this repeat of comment stresses standard Go which is 19x19.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=897
Sizes are interesting, for example, Scrabble's 15x15, past-standard
Chess 8x8, TicTacToe 3x3.  Betza speculates on different Go sizes such as 17x17. Of course we cannot equate constructions so different but make comparisons which aid in mental organization.
To highlight another Betza comment:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=513
It has one of the classic sentences in all the history of CVPage that rings true: ''Chess Variant people often like to make new rules more than they like to play the games; and often also they are less skillful at playing the games than they are at making the rules.''

In his 150 cvs, most of which were made during 2000-2003 in desparation
before he left, Ralph Betza never made a Xiangqi and never made a Shogi
variant. He had too much sense, thinking if they do not make Xiangqi
variants in China much at all, why should westerners? Or Betza never did explicitly eastern cvs simply because he stayed on exactly 64 squares, another argument might run. For whatever reason the forbearance from designing narrow regional asian sub-forms, Betza did weigh in on them occasionally, having travelled to Japan. 
General background: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=513.
Respect for east asian Go: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=888; the other 3 comments this thread show more Betza ideas especially on Go.

In one of the posts you linked to, Betza recommends acquiring knowledge of
Xiangqi and  Shogi, which I agree with. In the other, he writes about Go,
which is a strategy board game but not a Chess variant. Neither post lends
support to any explanation for why he didn't make any Xiangqi or Shogi
variants.

This thread has only five comments for anything Betza said. Betza uses
''gnohmon'' without identification, and probably those all belong to
Betza. I started this and have not gone through most ''gnohmon'' yet
from 2000-2003.  Provisionally, I think Betza stayed on 64 squares, avoided
80 or 81 or 100, and 90, because to his satisfaction he had found the next
chess, or he decided to act that way consistently for the rest of us:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=614. More
Betza thoughts are in articles than are in comments, and they could belong
linked this thread too. Being 80 squares, Outrigger(2002) is his only
regular cv of those above sizes. Does Betza ever use Xiangqi or Shogi
piece-types on 64 squares? Affirmative. In fact, many of the types -- but he never uses Cannon! -- and they need re-locating for this context.  One example is Shogi promoted Bishop, Dragon Horse, found in Betza's Augmented Chess as the same (Bishop + Wazir).
Betza implementations from Xiangqi and Shogi never rise to level of ''variant of xiangqi/shogi'' as that has come to be understood by the usa/british crowd of re-workers in that art medium.  In historical background, Betza
just stopped at around 150 cvs  mid-2003. Incidentally, around that same
number 150 cvs five years later, Gilman said he would start cutting back
output, in consideration of repetitiveness, but 'Gilmans' are nearing 250
now. It may also be interesting here to explore comparison of Betza and Boyer
and Betza and Parton. This is legitimate topic thread for ''anything Betza.''

George Duke wrote

Provisionally, I think Betza stayed on 64 squares, avoided 80 or 81 or 100, and 90, because to his satisfaction he had found the next chess, or he decided to act that way consistently for the rest of us

The former idea has some plausibility, given his opinion, as expressed in the comment you linked to, that CWDA may be the next Chess. But I think it would have more plausibility if he didn't create so many other variants. The explanation I find most plausible is, following Occam's razor, that he made variants mainly for the equipment he had available for playing them, which was a regular Chess set. Back when Betza made most of his variants, there weren't yet any computer programs (such as Zillions-of-Games) or websites (such as Game Courier) that would easily let you play almost any CV you could think of. In his day, CVs were played mainly by mail. In this interview, Betza mentions that he was in NOST, which was an organization devoted to postal play of CVs. When someone got moves by mail, it probably helped to be able to set up the current position of the game on a Chess board. Since most people who played by mail were likely to have Chess sets and less likely to have other CV equipment, this would limit most postal play to 8x8 boards. As to why he didn't create Xiangqi or Shogi variants, part of the explanation is given in the same interview I linked to. He didn't have much chance to play Shogi.

There is either a post or a comment in an article somewhere on this site
where Ralph admits that he mostly designs variants on 64-square boards
because, as a US-Master-level FIDE chess player, that was the board he
could most easily visualize.  This allowed him to do his play-testing in his
head, without resorting to physical equipment.