It might be desirable, though, to come to a consensus about our policy versus 'serial publication' amongst all editors, also those not daily involved in judging submissions. If someone would submit, say, a modest variant which replaces the Queen by a Queen that also can rifle-capture adjacent pieces, but otherwise is orthodox. In itself this seems worthy of publication. But then would submit 6 more identical articles where he replaces the word Queen and the image of it by an RN, BN, KN, RC, BC, or KC compound (all augmented with the adjacent rifle capture).
Do these 'clones' all deserve to be published as well? Or should we say: "just add a sentence in the Notes section of the article you already have that mentions that the game can also be played with RN, BN, ... as the super-piece"?
It might be desirable, though, to come to a consensus about our policy versus 'serial publication' amongst all editors, also those not daily involved in judging submissions. If someone would submit, say, a modest variant which replaces the Queen by a Queen that also can rifle-capture adjacent pieces, but otherwise is orthodox. In itself this seems worthy of publication. But then would submit 6 more identical articles where he replaces the word Queen and the image of it by an RN, BN, KN, RC, BC, or KC compound (all augmented with the adjacent rifle capture).
Do these 'clones' all deserve to be published as well? Or should we say: "just add a sentence in the Notes section of the article you already have that mentions that the game can also be played with RN, BN, ... as the super-piece"?