Enter Your Reply

I had figured I'd comment no further on this subject.... but, I can't
resist on a few points.

Joe stated:  '...And 10x10, or 20x20, is not 'large' - for
square, even-numbered boards, 8x8 is about the smallest size that gives a
decent game -'
Response: Board size is relative.  Most chess players would consider a 10
x 10 variant (100 squares vs 64) to be large.  20 x 20 also is large,
relative to an 8x8 board (which appears to be the 'standard' of measure
since we are talking about chess variants.

Joe continues: '.... clearly 2x2 and 4x4 are useless,'
Response: I'll not argue that.

Joe continues, ' and 6x6 is 'the easy game for the ladies and children'

Response: Ouch!  If the Polgar sisters could hear that, and Maria Ivanka
(9 times Hungarian Woman's Champion.  And if the young child prodigies
could see that statement...' So, I disaprove of that statement.  Many
women and children do quite well, very well, on the 8x8 board.  I am
confident that gender and age do not limit ones performance to certain
small games.

Joe continued: For odd numbered boards, 5x5 is useless, and 7x7 is Navia
Dratp.
Response: Navia Dratp makes use of a 7x7 battlefield.  But there is a 1 x
7 Keep behind the north and south edge... as well as a 'graveyard' and 2
economic crystal-regions per side.  So a mere 7x7 board is a little
misleading.

Joe also writes: 'Please, define your terms. ;-)'
Response: I mainly wanted to defend the honor of ladies and children in
this comment, following the 6x6 remark.  I have no terms to define.  Best
regards to all.