The point is that this website has standards for originality. And that, even though these are not extremely harsh, they are slowly rising with time, in response to the ever increasing flood of newly invented variants. What might have seemed a great novel idea in 1970, might not be considered worth it after having already been used in a few hundred other variants.
Ben, as one of the editors that actually do publish submissions, clearly stated the one of the reasons he refrained from publishing yours was that even after superficial inspection he could see they did not meet his standards for originality. And they also do not meet mine. You might not consider the latter relevant, because I would not publish any submissions anyway. But at least I flag it, so that you could do something to solve a problem that others might percieve silently.
A variant that uses two BN or two KN is just not different enough from one that has one of each, and otherwise identical setup. The game tree for those would largely coincide, after one of the super-pieces get traded.
As to favoriting: CVP does not exist as a tool for people to collect 'likes'; its goal is to present an interesting diversity of chess variants in an attractive way. And swamping it with nearly identical articles about nearly identical variants IMO conflicts with that purpose. There is no reason to facilitate attempts to 'score' 3 favorites for basically the same variant.
The point is that this website has standards for originality. And that, even though these are not extremely harsh, they are slowly rising with time, in response to the ever increasing flood of newly invented variants. What might have seemed a great novel idea in 1970, might not be considered worth it after having already been used in a few hundred other variants.
Ben, as one of the editors that actually do publish submissions, clearly stated the one of the reasons he refrained from publishing yours was that even after superficial inspection he could see they did not meet his standards for originality. And they also do not meet mine. You might not consider the latter relevant, because I would not publish any submissions anyway. But at least I flag it, so that you could do something to solve a problem that others might percieve silently.
A variant that uses two BN or two KN is just not different enough from one that has one of each, and otherwise identical setup. The game tree for those would largely coincide, after one of the super-pieces get traded.
As to favoriting: CVP does not exist as a tool for people to collect 'likes'; its goal is to present an interesting diversity of chess variants in an attractive way. And swamping it with nearly identical articles about nearly identical variants IMO conflicts with that purpose. There is no reason to facilitate attempts to 'score' 3 favorites for basically the same variant.