Enter Your Reply

Go Chess; hard to think of many outside of Vulcans or mentats, or somesuch,
who would actually play this game. It has every feature/suffers from every
flaw of big CVs. If done right, it may even add a new sin to the big CV
list. *It's extremely logical. You're in control. You can build every
piece and board position step by step yourself. *It's excruciatingly
slow. You have to build every piece and board position step by step. It'd
take Deep Blue to have even a chance at 'mentally' organizing the chaos
on the board to plan even a little ahead. HAL wouldn't have a chance. ;-)
*You will have a large number of pieces and types of pieces to contest
with, making for rich tactical opportunities and strategic play. *You will
have to wade thru legions of the opponent's pieces before you even get
close to the king. This last contrast has a direct bearing on any large
CV. There is always the temptation to load up the board with pieces; they
look so empty with 100 - 200 empty squares and 30 - 50 pieces. But you can
cut to the chase fairly quickly; you don't have to exchange your first two
rows of pieces with your opponents before you can get down to serious
maneuvering. Being up a queen in Grand Chess is far more meaningful than
being ahead 7 - 6 in queens in '8 of everything' chess. 
But not all big games have to feature goodly numbers of power pieces. Try
a big game with pieces that only move 4-5 squares at most; see what
that's like. Different piece strengths give different game flavors. Most
large games have pieces that move across the board, knights, and the
king/man piece(s). That's so one-sided. 
How many pieces is too many? Most would say it's a matter of taste, but I
think measuring piece numbers against playability will at least give use a
useable product, which is a consideration. I think it's a sin to put
pieces on a board just to fill in spaces. Either get rid of the spaces or
find a more creative use for them. David Paulowich has used the first
method, of getting rid of spaces, and creates tight, intense games on 8x8
boards. I've attempted the second, with some unusual board design, but so
far met with less success. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, just means I have to
try harder.
Now, with all that being said, I kinda like GoChess. Anyone interested in
discussing rules attempting idea playtesting? A 9x9 to 13x13 would be a
decent size to try things out. Done right, it could be almost choked with
pieces of widely varying powers in semi-random starting positions. So
I've got nothing (other than what's in the first paragraph;) against
large games with all the trappings. I'll offer all my opponents in this
debate a new big CV, goChess, to atone for my heresies. Except you, Gary.
:-) For you, I got another game, Lemurian Shatranj, featuring some new
moderate-range pieces, because you already said goChess is not your style.
I promise you'll find Lemurian Shatranj intriguing, buddy. :-) Enjoy   Joe