Enter Your Reply

NextChess1 through -8 came out of talk on the problem of proliferation and lack of play of worthwhile CVs. Joe Joyce made classic informed comment in 2008 -- not fully appreciated at the time -- pertaining to so many CVs:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=18323.
The point of having 30 Next Chesses is
to have 30 Next Chesses, not one. Like Brainking has 40 or 50 CVs; but
elevating 30-50 to some significance eventually would be more
enjoyable than Brainking's tacit subservience to OrthoChess64. Otherwise
it is just random self-promotion and impulse ratings and poorly-attended
intermittent contests and, worst of all, CVs only as artwork. Right above finishes the original 21 CVs nominated
from fall 2008, and next target is to have the complete comparison-ranking 1 to 30
by adding one Gifford, one Gilman, one J. Smith. Fourriere's
Bilateral, Aronson's Transactional, and Fischer Random are already to be
reviewed soon as #s 22-24. Then there are to be 3 more after-the-fact
wildcards #s 28-30, for which your any nomination still counts. It's goofy and tedious just to throw up half-analysed CV after
CV, living in ignorance of 90%+ of the material already within, when the process if continued is potentially unlimited into millions of variant
rules-sets -- and that much more ignorance. Not to mention, increasingly duplicative work with the plagiarisms and borrowings getting harder or time-consuming to ferret out. The new decade 2010-2019 ought to be for organization of the
past decade's ill-advised proliferation gone wild.  ''Next ChessXXs'' address just that, and another separate strictly-novelty CV scheme is also needed to rank and recognize great Track Two material -- like Rococo, Eight-Stone, Promoters, Philosophers, Tetrahedral -- intellectually as having value beyond mere CVPage self-expression and legitimate ongoing experimentation.