Single Comment

One of 400 CVs Rated, Latrunculi gets Poor simply because the full piece mix was used before, without even acknowlegement, in Logical Follow-up to Duke of Rutland's: (RFerz),N,(BWazir),Q,K,P. Period. There are no 6-point criteria. That's silly. There are not even so few as 16 or 36 factors on checklist in rating. Are there 100 factors? More like several hundred. Below 1/2 the LargeCVs, anyone can read Comments mostly 2003-2005 by 'GWD' evaluating in long-term survey. The deliberative criteria from value-statements already made about 300 Large and 100 other CVs are variously ad hoc, heuristic, eclectic. We reach into our toolbag on a case basis to show an honest appraisal. Piece-type density, piece density, power density, originality, complete Rules, extent of Drawishness, supporting problem themes, cultural resonances, no channelled openings, value-added. These Comments are conscientiously to reject JJoyce's doctrine of re-inventing the wheel -- directly related to likes of Latrunculi. Joyce has said for year that it is not so important whether a deviser recreates a form used before. To contrary, we think it is incumbent to make every effort to find all relevant prior art and meanwhile postpone publishing. Our position is supported by Fergus Duniho's 'Marshall' article, then directed at overuse of (RN) and (BN) without knowledge of prior uses. Altogether thus our opinion that bad precedent and example, for newcomers especially, this Latrunculi. That's all, not so big a deal. It does not criticize GGifford's adequate Chess work elsewhere, nor do we particularly reach out for agreement from the majority here(extreme minority elsewhere) propounding 'proliferation' as their ideal.