Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Nov 23, 2009 03:23 AM UTC:
In regards to the question about 'NextChess' (if this is the name we are
agreeing to, or 'Next Chess', that is fine, and doesn't look taken), may
I suggest there be a focus on HOW it will come about, addressing the issues
we would like to see dealt with, and not just WHAT? Like, what do we all
want 'NextChess' to be like? What do we want in it to have? What do we
find appealing about variants, and what can we distill from them? And can
we have a game that isn't static, but one that can evolve so it remains
fresh?
You can look at what I have written before, and what I have proposed as
variants, so you can get some idea what I am interested in, from mutators,
to a range of formations, to a classification system for handling a range
of variant types, in terms of complexity and stability.