Single Comment

George, I don't know that I ever expressed it *quite* like that, lol, but yes, I believe there are a large number of games in the 'Chess' area of conceptual space, and think many of them are quite good and worth playing if you're so inclined. We also have a number of games that are very close to, but not quite inside, the 'Chess' area, and this site seems to have been accepting them well before I found it. I think that's good in itself [and also because there is really no other place for them.] That's my basic position.

Now, thank you, George, for helping me make the big time. :-) Must be getting somewhere if I have an avowed philosophical adversary! And while one could loosely categorize us as opposites, with your position as 'minimalist' and mine as 'maximalist', there are some points on which we have general agreement. The number of games on CV certainly exceeds the number of good games by an order of magnitude. And I must give you points for agreeing there are a decent number of good games onsite, even 50 standouts. Most minimalists wouldn't do that. 

But I must agree with Greg and Jeremy that you and Mats are both wrong in condemning a game as unplayable without even trying to play it when the game and rules are as simple and easy to understand as Cataclysm. [And Jeremy's Cataclysm preset with the alternate 'pictograph' pieces makes the  game even easier to play.] This is not some tired re-working of chancellor chess or Carrera's chess. This is an excellent shot at creating a different kind of chess variant, and I respect it as such. It's eminently playable. I will here cheerfully challenge Greg, you, and Mats to a game - Jeremy and I already have one going. Some of your other comments I'll try to take up elsewhere. I may surprise you by finding an area of agreement again. Enjoy! Joe