Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

So, i will just put the zip file on the page dedicated to the same game. I have nothing to do on the page dedicated to Zillions, right?

No, we have separate pages for Zillions-of-Games files, as this makes it easier for someone interested in them to search or browse through them. Start to post a page like you would to post a game, but choose the "Create Zillions Item" option.

There seems to be some inconsistency, or at least something that is very confusing. When I go to a page of one of the variants mentioned here as a link, this displays a black 'attention box' at the top mentioning it is on our list of 'featured games'. When I click the link that box refers to, I get to a page which appears to be an index page with an alphabetical list of (presumably) 'featured games'. Most of the variants mentioned in that list are also labeled there as 'recognized'.

The point is that there seems to be no relation to that page, and the one we comment on here. Spartan Chess is mentioned as a 'featured game', but it is not mentioned here as being a featured variant. Chu Shogi is labeled 'recognized', but it is not mentioned here as ever having been recognized. (What makes this extra strange is that we used to have no article on Chu Shogi here, but just an external link, until I created one (in 2015), and I think I did that long after the 'recognized' program had been terminated.)

Is the 'featured chess variants' page incomplete, and are their time periods in which variants were chosen to be labeled as 'recognized' or 'featured game' that are not mentioned here at all? Or is 'featured chess variant' something different from 'featured game'?

BTW, I think that, even when an organized effort to choose a 'recognized' variant of the month is no longer done, the consistency of this site requires us to label obviously important (historically, or because of a large player base) chess variants as 'recognized'.

@HG: it is even more than that. The black 'attention box' you mention doesn't exist for Cylindrical C. and Shako.

The table "Recognized Variants of the Month" looks strange with 2006 at left end and 2001 at right end. I would have set it the other way.

Some comments from my side on the potential candidates for future Featured CVs:

• Superchess: there are (too) many games named "Superchess". You mean Superschaak obviously. I see it more as a open concept rather than a specific game. It remains that the author (Van Haeringen) sells very nice fairy pieces, in wood, excellent size and high quality.

• Musketeer Chess: also good for the concept and the availability of the plastic pieces. However, the page describing it here is of a very low quality and has never been corrected and improved. Second, if Musketeer Chess is recognized, it should be mentioned Pioneer Chess from Mats Whiter which precedates it and which is almost the same game.

• In my recent book ("More Chess and More Than Chess") just published, I described several CVs, in addition to my own creations, that could be good candidates: Expanded C., Sac C., Opulent C., Elven C., Gross C., Hectochess, Enhanced Courier C.

Indeed, I meant Superschaak, which in the English section of its website is referred to as Superchess. (It seems even the website has two domain names, superschaak.nl and superchess.nl.)

I don't think that being an 'open concept' should be a problem. 'Chess with Different Armies' is also an open concept, and it has been awarded the 'recognized' label.

That the description on this website might be sub-standard should not deter us from an intention to award the featured status to a deserving variant. It just means we have to improve the presentation, of push the author to improve the presentation, and perhaps provide some computer opponent if there is none. This is why I was pushing to do these nominations one or two weeks in advance, so that there is time to make the necessary changes and preparations before the variant actually gets featured.

The variants from your latest book are all good candidates. But they do belong to a family of closely related games, which was the theme of the book. So also here I suggest that we should not pick too many of those in a row, but regularly also pay attention to variants that involve more exotic rules that put them outside the scope of your book. (Such as double moving, atomic captures, immobilizers and move inducers, location-dependent moving, type-change on capture, capture-the-flag winning condition, asymmetry...)

As a specific candidate for next month, I propose Duck Chess. This has a description here with an Interactive Diagram; it can be played on-line at chess.com, there is a WinBoard/XBoard version that supports it, and several engines that can be loaded in WinBoard/XBoard to play it against the computer.

BTW, there appears an attention box on that page that says it is written by its inventor, but this is not true. I don't know what triggered this.

Perhaps I should also have mentioned as a future suggestion:

• King of the Hill

This is another variant that can be played (and is reasonably popular) on chess.com, and a good representative of variants with an alternate winning condition.

I think there can be another approach. Popularity is a questionable criterion in most cases because people tend to play what they were given by a search engine, the inventor's activity to promote a CV or his initial popularity like in the case of Chess960. Chess in its structure is closer to a formal science, so, the function here prevails over the form, and it would be a valid point to explore the less showcased specturm of the medium which can provide the reader with an efficient or original idea. By saying that I mean this as another possible approach, that does not exclude others. There are plenty of hidden gems on this site, some of whom didn't even get a single comment, it would be better in my opinion to promote them for further discussion instead of established CVs.

Among relatively known ones, I personally would vote for Modern Chess and Singularity Chess.

The page for Singularity Chess here is completely empty, though...

Do you mean this page? It was probably dedicated to a different game that shares the same name. The tags mention that it is multiplayer, while the original Singularity is played only by two players (https://www.printables.com/model/71969-singularity-chess-board).

Well, this was the page that is in the alphabetical index under the name Singularity Chess. If the variant you mention is a different one, it does not even have a page here.

There seems to be some inconsistency, or at least something that is very confusing. When I go to a page of one of the variants mentioned here as a link, this displays a black 'attention box' at the top mentioning it is on our list of 'featured games'. When I click the link that box refers to, I get to a page which appears to be an index page with an alphabetical list of (presumably) 'featured games'. Most of the variants mentioned in that list are also labeled there as 'recognized'.

Indeed, the link in the attention box is just the mainquery with listprimary=1. "Primary" is just a flag on an item in the database, and I'm not sure we've always used it consistently; they show up at the top of search results lists, and so have been Recognized variants but also just archetypical games (of the presumably searched category), and a few in that list I don't know why they're marked as such at all. There is a separate flag for Recognized variants; is there one for Featured variants (I don't recall and can't look right now), or should there be?

BTW, there appears an attention box on that page [Duck Chess] that says it is written by its inventor, but this is not true. I don't know what triggered this.

That is triggered by having Author and Inventor the same personid. When a member submission is made, both fields are filled with the submitter, and an editor needs to change the Inventor if that assumption is incorrect. I've done so for Duck Chess (adding a Person listing for Tim Paulden in the process).

Chu Shogi does not show up at the top of the alphabetical index page for 'Ch', but it is on the 'featured games' list.

Hm, maybe I was confusing Primary with Recognized? Then what does Primary do? (Note that Links can also be Primary, but that's entirely separate.)

It seems none of the recognized variants is displayed at the top of the alphabetical index pages anymore.

Then what does Primary do? (Note that Links can also be Primary, but that's entirely separate.)

In the past, search results would show only primary links if there were too many search results, and you would be provided with links to subcategories that might not have too many search results. Since I did not consider this a good way to provide search results, I recently changed this when I updated queryinc.php. Search results are now limited to 500 at a time, and if there are more, you get a link to another page of results. You can still see a list of primary links if you want to, but they no longer show up by default. All that usually happens is that the name and description appear in boldface.

Primary links are not synonymous with recognized variants or featured variants, though at one time, a link to the games marked primary was misleadingly called featured. Currently, the notice about the featured game gives a link to this page, which should help encourage people to post nominations in a more timely manner.

It seems none of the recognized variants is displayed at the top of the alphabetical index pages anymore.

Also, in the past, primary pages would appear in the search results ahead of the complete search results, and the complete search results would appear only if there were not too many. Since I modified queryinc.php to always show the actual search results, the need to show the primary pages separately was not as great. I also thought it could make the search results confusing by leading people to not look at the complete search results. So, primary pages no longer show up separately unless that's what you specifically choose to search for.

Well, I think that was a very bad idea. Having the primary results first was very useful, as most of the time I would be looking for one of those. So please re-instate this feature.

Among relatively known ones, I personally would vote for Modern Chess and Singularity Chess.

If you want to nominate games, please include a link to each game's page on this site. After all, the first requirement for a game to be featured is that it have a page on this site. Once we see the page, we can determine whether it meets the other requirements.

Having the primary results first was very useful, as most of the time I would be looking for one of those.

The primary pages still show up in the main search results, and they are in boldface so you can recognize them more easily. I see no need to list them separately before listing them again in the full search results.

Except that when I search on the first two letters the list of search results is often very long, so that the boldface results are not visible, and I have to scroll a lot to get to them. And if I search for Chu Shogi that way, it would not even be on the page, and I have to click a 'next' button first to get at it.

That sucks.

And it did not suck before...

I don't think we've yet answered "What is a Primary variant/page?"...

@HG: I was suggesting these variants just to put some names on the list, on the long run. I agree with you to have variety in the type of chess variants to be recognised. Duck Chess is a very good suggestion.

I would like to ask one or more of the editors to look over David Paulowich's Opulent Lemurian Shatranj for consideration as a featured variant. For obvious reasons, I cannot suggest it, but the way the game is constructed with pairs of opposing pieces of different values gives this game a quality that most games don't have, including at least most of mine. I can be accused of being prejudiced, so if no one likes this game of David's, then please consider other of his games.

Hi Joe! At present several of my games are being torn apart and completely rebuilt. Maybe they could be considered around 2025. I have three Featured Chess nominations to make at this time.

The ShortRange Project made a big splash back in 2006. Putting 32 variants in a Zillions of Games 2.0 package will definitely attract attention. Since Joe keeps praising my closely related game Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, lets add that one to the list.

If the impact a game can potentially have on the general chess community is a factor, then Tiger Hunt (1996) is worthy of consideration. This reworking of a classic introductory game for children uses exactly one-half of a chess set, making it a great way to stretch your resources. Schools usually have a surplus of inexpensive boards printed on stiff paper - parents at home can make use of any checkers game lying about.

Saving the best for last, there is Ralph Betza's Sort of Almost Chess (1995). Playing every game with a White Chancellor and a Black Queen creates an entirely new chess experience. Pawn promotion for both sides would include both Queens and Chancellors. To continue my comment of [2023-02-25], we could always hold a contest to choose a more interesting name, like Carrera's Revenge. Chess has the reputation of being a game that you can learn to play in ten minutes and take a lifetime to learn how to play well. This is another game that deserves the same reputation.