Re: established 'standards for originality' of CV inventions submitted for publication on CVP site: No, that seems not quite so (though I am assuming you meant they are [well?]established 'standards' - never mind I've never seen any standards/guidelines for originality for a CV to be published put prominently on CVP site with my own eyes, as yet). More to the point, I looked at CVP editor Ben's post (a bit earlier in this Thread) that I assume you refer to (the one where he identified (even by numbering of each of) 3 key/(vexing?) issues for CVP editorial policy to possibly address in future), and he merely stated he had his own personal standards (for cv originality being sufficient, for example, the (so far only) standard of his which he personally deemed that I did not yet meet - assuming he remains the editor perusing my 9 Rules Pages submissions in my pipeline, which are waiting to be published, that blocks me until that changes by my own revisions are palatable to Ben, or perhaps until another editor looks at my stuff later, perhaps even if I leave it as it is at present). Elsewhere in this Thread, Fergus mentioned he left (any sort of?!) such standards up to each individual editor [I assume he meant in case if there is doubt]).
Note also, speaking of Fergus, he (not so many years ago) painstakingly managed/changed the CVP Favoriting system, and other ways of rating/ranking (on various lists) individual CV inventions (and even individual inventors' output), as opposed to necessarily (as far as I know) laying down any existing guidelines on, for example, whether cloning on Rules Pages for CVs on CVP site must be applied, and then stating what may happen, say due to the ramifications on, e.g., the Favorites list for CVP, etc. (in case it otherwise might bother him by compromising any of the lists visitors/members might wish to look at when looking for a fast way to decide which CVs may be worth trying out first, as the ones which would be likely to be worth playing, for example, as opposed to the massive amount of other stuff they may wish to try playing later (if ever)).
Regarding what I see as a possible misjudgment, about CVs having 'almost identical' armies/setups, reflect on just this, for now: numerous of CV Rules Pages feature identical armies, for each side, for (10x8) setups. It could be that arguably (perhaps in at the least some cases) only relatively minor re-arrangements of Capablanca Chess etc. are needed to change their setups to be identical. Fergus invented at the least one of them himself long ago (Grotesque Chess being one for such, I can recall right now - though note he decided to clone to his Rules Page about it one of my own CV ideas that was similar enough to his CV, in his estimation). However, maybe more importantly: How does the 'game tree' look like for all those ones, that have identical armies in their setups (I assume it would be... identical)? Anyway, I vaguely recall a post of yours fairly long ago (in reply to one of mine) might well have addressed point(s) re: (10x8) Capablanca Chess etc., in some manner (though I'm absolutely sure the game tree issue was not argued by you at that point).
@ H.G.:
Re: established 'standards for originality' of CV inventions submitted for publication on CVP site: No, that seems not quite so (though I am assuming you meant they are [well?]established 'standards' - never mind I've never seen any standards/guidelines for originality for a CV to be published put prominently on CVP site with my own eyes, as yet). More to the point, I looked at CVP editor Ben's post (a bit earlier in this Thread) that I assume you refer to (the one where he identified (even by numbering of each of) 3 key/(vexing?) issues for CVP editorial policy to possibly address in future), and he merely stated he had his own personal standards (for cv originality being sufficient, for example, the (so far only) standard of his which he personally deemed that I did not yet meet - assuming he remains the editor perusing my 9 Rules Pages submissions in my pipeline, which are waiting to be published, that blocks me until that changes by my own revisions are palatable to Ben, or perhaps until another editor looks at my stuff later, perhaps even if I leave it as it is at present). Elsewhere in this Thread, Fergus mentioned he left (any sort of?!) such standards up to each individual editor [I assume he meant in case if there is doubt]).
Note also, speaking of Fergus, he (not so many years ago) painstakingly managed/changed the CVP Favoriting system, and other ways of rating/ranking (on various lists) individual CV inventions (and even individual inventors' output), as opposed to necessarily (as far as I know) laying down any existing guidelines on, for example, whether cloning on Rules Pages for CVs on CVP site must be applied, and then stating what may happen, say due to the ramifications on, e.g., the Favorites list for CVP, etc. (in case it otherwise might bother him by compromising any of the lists visitors/members might wish to look at when looking for a fast way to decide which CVs may be worth trying out first, as the ones which would be likely to be worth playing, for example, as opposed to the massive amount of other stuff they may wish to try playing later (if ever)).
Regarding what I see as a possible misjudgment, about CVs having 'almost identical' armies/setups, reflect on just this, for now: numerous of CV Rules Pages feature identical armies, for each side, for (10x8) setups. It could be that arguably (perhaps in at the least some cases) only relatively minor re-arrangements of Capablanca Chess etc. are needed to change their setups to be identical. Fergus invented at the least one of them himself long ago (Grotesque Chess being one for such, I can recall right now - though note he decided to clone to his Rules Page about it one of my own CV ideas that was similar enough to his CV, in his estimation). However, maybe more importantly: How does the 'game tree' look like for all those ones, that have identical armies in their setups (I assume it would be... identical)? Anyway, I vaguely recall a post of yours fairly long ago (in reply to one of mine) might well have addressed point(s) re: (10x8) Capablanca Chess etc., in some manner (though I'm absolutely sure the game tree issue was not argued by you at that point).
Regards, KP