Single Comment

Since I am cast in the role of Proliferator-in-Chief, partly because I
often use sloppy language and am at times obscure from expressing a rather
strange sense of humor, but also because I very much do favor a totally
free expression of ideas in design, I will do my best to uphold my end of
the argument. That's 'argument' in the sense of debate, of discussing
an issue in terms of pro and con, not in the sense of antagonism.

With the stage set for the opening act, let's briefly introduce the
principals. I have been a boardgamer, all but exclusively a wargamer, for
over 45 years. I enjoy playing rather complicated games, and I very much
enjoy game design [this means I haven't made any money at it]. Three
years ago, I found this site, discovered chess variants, and found they
are a truly wonderful medium for game design. But I approach variants from
the aspect of a wargamer [and wargame designer], not from the perspective
of a chessplayer.

George has stated he's been involved in chess variants for decades [I
believe the earliest date he mentioned I recall is 1985.] He is, from what
I see, the proponent of a 'two-track' system of design. One track is
light, even frivolous, design, where some fairly small number of games are
made and played just for fun. The other is serious, and is basically an
investigation into the way[s] FIDE can be modified [as little as possible]
to take it out of the hands of the computers and put it back into the hands
of the grandmasters. He personally knows a great amount of history and was
closely involved in the growth and development of the original
chessvariants community. I'll end this post here, asking George to make
any additions, deletions, or corrections he deems proper.