Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 07:50 PM UTC:One of the features of multiform is that it can work productively with many different minimalists and other groups. George, what are your criteria for games that are sufficiently chesslike to be in contention? Does the board size range from 8x8 to 10x10, or only 8x10? Must all the FIDE pieces be maintained totally intact under any circumstances? Is there a minimum and maximum number of pieces? Of pawns? I certainly have no objection to discussing, assisting with, or designing some games under these constraints; in a sense, it's a contest. Many of us like contests. Lay out the rules, and some of us will enter. In the wider sense, I've joked before that we are obscurely famous, known by tens worldwide. How many people actually read this board? 10, 100, 1000, 10000? Or play? Heck, I included printable boards in my early games, and even mediocre shatranj-type printable pieces along with the 8x10 and 10x10 boards in 'Two Large Shatranj Variants'. To my knowledge, 1 person has used this; he printed a board after I told him it was there. I wish more people would play these games; possibly when the world has more leisure time, our creations will become more popular. Maybe as popular as military-style board wargames were once. Maybe not. ;-) But whether any game is a serious try at the next chess, a shatranj variant, or some giant game with pieces that cover 10-20 squares each, I will treat them all the same. Different perspective. To sum up: There is no problem with your 'two tracks' for game design, and I will cheerfully do what I can to boost your 'inside track'. But surely all designs need to be considered strictly as games in their own terms, as well as being judged by a specific existing set of criteria... Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID Multiform does not match any item.