I think you have provided very good insights and many valid points, and I have been taking them into account to improve my variants’ submissions. I’ll continue making all the necessary adjustments and additions to the description of these variants, so they are easier to understand with more robust and unambiguous rules.
However, I not only expressed my preference for keeping the three submissions separate, I also provided most of the main reasons why I think this is a better approach.
These are the main reasons why I think keeping these three submissions separate is the best way to describe these variants:
These variants have different sets of rules, which produce very different game evolutions and board configuration possibilities. Although they share some common rules and the same concept of ‘swap move’.
Submitting just one article for the three variants will require that I use just one single name (‘Swap Chess’ maybe?) for just one variant, when in fact there are three variants, each one with its own name. This might add confusion, not clarity to the idea these three variants are different.
In the ‘Notes’ section of the article’s submission page I would have to mention that these are variants of a variant, which in fact wouldn’t be an accurate statement nor a good way of communicating these variants’ relationships. I think this would make it more confusing for the end user to understand there are three variants, and not just one. Besides, it will make the ‘Notes’ section longer.
Adding the rules description of each variant to the same ‘Rules’ section of one article’s submission page will make it seem as if all three distinct sets of rules would apply to the same game, which is not the case, thus making it more confusing to understand the fact that these rules belong three different variants, not just one. Besides, it will make the ‘Rules’ section longer and unnecessarily much more complicated.
Keeping the three submissions separate will avoid the aforementioned issues and further simplify the descriptions of these three chess variants.
I think you have provided very good insights and many valid points, and I have been taking them into account to improve my variants’ submissions. I’ll continue making all the necessary adjustments and additions to the description of these variants, so they are easier to understand with more robust and unambiguous rules. However, I not only expressed my preference for keeping the three submissions separate, I also provided most of the main reasons why I think this is a better approach.
These are the main reasons why I think keeping these three submissions separate is the best way to describe these variants:
Thanks.