As a layman on this website I'm not sure how much my opinion weights, but we the people of the simple inventors, should maybe have a saying too. The principles stated by Fergus here: https://www.chessvariants.com/opinions.dir/fergus/design.html ,
should be softly employed by all inventors. Sure one can make a more lengthy game which is a bit tedious, some of us, me included, have done that, but what is sacrificed in time should be gained in enjoyment. I'm not saying games should be marginalized or outright rejected out of the bat just for being a bit over the top, there would be plenty of cases where editors won't be able to easilly tell if a game is good. But some hurdles need to be applied.
I'm saying this because I see a good few new games a week and they don't seem to add to anythink. I've done that too with ENEP. It was my first, and just a whim in a evening. The inventors should show that their game is thought through at least a bit. Sorry for my ranting but I think I have a point.
PS I have myself have deleted a submission of mine a while ago. I think it was called ultra grand cavalier chess. I do not know about it's playability, but it was meant to be part of a series where a take some games and make them bigger, many times as a homage to the inventor of the initial game. I figured out I cannot invest the time in such a project because it is too hard for me to desing the variants I am designing, with all I want for them like having a PC program that plays them. My point is that inventing chess variants should be at least somewhat difficult as otherwise we will get mostly plain games. Any of us can invent tommorow 24 games, and not necessarilly of the bad kind. I have done that with my Frog/Hannibal/Waffle chess with Gryphon/Manticore and falcon. But I am not sure about the meaning of those games. My personal opinion is that an accepted game should exibit an whatever would be a interesting coeficient of around 80% of my above mentioned games.
As a layman on this website I'm not sure how much my opinion weights, but we the people of the simple inventors, should maybe have a saying too. The principles stated by Fergus here: https://www.chessvariants.com/opinions.dir/fergus/design.html , should be softly employed by all inventors. Sure one can make a more lengthy game which is a bit tedious, some of us, me included, have done that, but what is sacrificed in time should be gained in enjoyment. I'm not saying games should be marginalized or outright rejected out of the bat just for being a bit over the top, there would be plenty of cases where editors won't be able to easilly tell if a game is good. But some hurdles need to be applied. I'm saying this because I see a good few new games a week and they don't seem to add to anythink. I've done that too with ENEP. It was my first, and just a whim in a evening. The inventors should show that their game is thought through at least a bit. Sorry for my ranting but I think I have a point.
PS I have myself have deleted a submission of mine a while ago. I think it was called ultra grand cavalier chess. I do not know about it's playability, but it was meant to be part of a series where a take some games and make them bigger, many times as a homage to the inventor of the initial game. I figured out I cannot invest the time in such a project because it is too hard for me to desing the variants I am designing, with all I want for them like having a PC program that plays them. My point is that inventing chess variants should be at least somewhat difficult as otherwise we will get mostly plain games. Any of us can invent tommorow 24 games, and not necessarilly of the bad kind. I have done that with my Frog/Hannibal/Waffle chess with Gryphon/Manticore and falcon. But I am not sure about the meaning of those games. My personal opinion is that an accepted game should exibit an whatever would be a interesting coeficient of around 80% of my above mentioned games.