Ratings & Comments

Oh, I took Partonesque as a compliment!  It's just my regretable tendency
towards weak statements that made it sound otherwise.  I'm a big fan of
V.R. Parton's work.

What happens if the top squares get filled up?  Is the game a stalemate, or
is there a way to clear out the top to make room fo the king and queen? 
Also this has some resembalance to Cheops, in which one of the two
objectives is to have the queen on the top level of the pyramidal board.

I think that it depends opon the variant and the wirteing style, a bare
bones rules would be preferable to a badly writen naritive which has the
rules in it, on the other hand a sci-fi/fantasy based varient would seem
stale or flat without somekind of backround.  And when it comes to
background there is a very large gray area, becuase you could easily say
that why a piece was chosen to move the way it does is part of a bare bones
discription, but sometimes the reasoning is so complex it could qualify as
literature.

There is also a question of 'What is literature?' a common question is 'Is
a comicbook literature?' in this case it might be better as 'Is a
discription literature?' some would say yes, others no.  Certainly I would
always prefer a discrtiption into which some kind of tone or voice has been
put, but that is not the same as haveing something on the level of Ralph
Betza's Nemoroth, which gives you the feel and atmosphere of the game.  If
everyone could write on that level then we would have an impressive
colection of CVs and literature in one, and games that otherwise might have
been overlooked would be noticed and played.

I fear that I may have lost track of my point near the first or second line
but if I try and go back and change it this will make even less sense. 
Basicly what I'm saying is that a well writen back story or setting could
never hurt a discription, and in some cases it's absense would.  Also a
discription its self can have a certain literay flavor to it that makes it
easier to read and understand than a bare rules only format.  I think that
the most disireable form of a discription is first and formost the rules,
backround information on how the game came to be and why the pieces are the
way they are, and any story or such thing that goes with it, i.e. a game
claiming to be elven chess should say a bit about how the elves played the
game.  If the rules are mixed in with the other elements, like for example
as in Nemoroth it may also be a good idea to have them listed sepreately,
also as in Nemoroth, so that those that don't want to read the non rule
related elements don't have to, and those that want to quickly refrence a
rule can.

I know I rambled and I hope it made sense and was in some way helpful.

Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think
that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess
variants.  Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most
variants receive very little play.  Therefore, the main point of the CVP,
at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants.

As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart
information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid.
 Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired
them.  A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem
incomprehensible and arbitrary.  Other variants that are hard to appreciate
without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan
Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess.

One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my
Pizza Kings.  It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric
humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad
newspapers.

We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an
international following.  Therefore, it is likely that the point behind
Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or
interest in late 19th C. English musical theater.  We also have to be
careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness.

The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a
forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without
getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages.

I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it
wandered away.  I like clever and amusing literate writing.  I think it
enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP.  Intelligent,
well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.

Having had time to think of my earlier comment I am almost entirely sure
that I lost the point, the reader, or both.  I'll try to keep it short this
time.  I completely missed one of the points that I had wanted to make.  A
discription with just the rules can be writen in such a way that the author
puts their own tone or flavor into it, this gives the reader a feeling that
the author is speaking to them.  This effect is helpful because for some
reason it is easyer to understand the same information if it seems like it
is said to the reader, it is also easier to remember.  This probably
doesn't make it all the way to literature, but it is somehow more than a
barebones discription.  This somewhat goes with what John said about it
being a kind of conversation.

I went back and reread Pizza Kings, and it's better than I remembered. 
Pizza Kings actually had a definite satirical purpose.  At that time,
people were suggesting various different armies with themes like leaping,
or spaciousness, or fizziness.  I just extended the theme to something
completely irrelevant to chess, and then developed the theme deadpan.  Part
of the point I was making earlier is that sort of thing is only pleasing in
moderation.  If I had gone on to invent the Avenging Appetizers and the
Beer Batterers, the result would have been far less than three times as
amusing.

I was also unclear in stating my preference.  I much prefer an entertaining
and engaging description.  I am one of those variantists who actually
rarely play, but, concurring with gnohmon's point, I found Nemoroth so
fascinating that I am actually playing an email game.  That is based on two
things: the terrific description, and the original mechanics.  In the case
of Nemoroth, they cannot be separated.  Without the story, the mechanics
would seem capricious.  Without the unusual mechanics, the story would just
be an exercise in cleverness, without point on the CVP.  Now, e.g., there
is a clear picture in my mind of a Leaf Pile, what it does, and why.

MY personal preference is for CV proposals that contain a minimum of
narration and a straight-forward presentation of the author's rules. 

I'm OK with very brief comments that actually simplify learning the rules,
but I have very little interest in extended narratives.