Enter Your Reply

Ok, I figure it is best to chime in with a few things here:
1. Regarding pawn promotion: In a nutshell, I want there to be an
agreement that whomever creates variants or complete new chess games, be
able to account for all the needed game equipment to be able to handle all game states that arise, and have the game rules be able to explain how they are handled.  My preference would be in a common standard towards this.  This means, if
you are going to allow for promotion to a large number of the same kind of
pieces, you explain where the material to have this will happen.  You make
sure the game rules aren't broken.  Go on Boardgamegeek, for example, and
look at what the opinion is of games that don't provide enough equipment
to be able to meet a game state that arises.  That is considered a flawed
condition.  Why not consider it the same with chess variants?  I am of the
belief that, if you will have a reserve and a large number of Queen level
pieces, then it makes sense to restrict how pawns promote.  So here, I
will go 'Fine' to having the possibility of 9 queens running around on a
board at the same time.  But is not explaining where the material for
gameplay will come from to account for this better than having a standard
to explain where the equipment comes from to do this?  
2. Regarding standards and creativity.  Is writing fiction not a creative
activity?  How effective would it be, if there wasn't standards for
language and grammar?  Also, if there wasn't a defined ZRF language for
Zillions, would we have much in the way of creativity expressed in this
area?
3. Open-source bullies?  Exactly how do these bullies cause there to be problems?  Do they point a gun at people's heads, or do their Internet equipment not work?

Looks like I may have to do a case for standards post.