Single Comment

'It is not possible to test EVERY possible permutation since there are
tens of thousands of them.'

I have not made even a wide estimate of the number of select permutations
(with undesirable starting arrays excluded via game-specific criteria)
which would require some study to expediently determine whether or not
they are probably of decent quality.  Perhaps, Dr. Scharnagl has
calculated a firm estimate.  Even if it is not easily possible for one
person to playtest and analyze, for wild example, 10,000 select
permutations in less than 2.7 years (arbitrarily calculated at a rate of
10 per day), this is totally beside the point.

The point is that the quality of EVERY chess variant given to the public
which can legally be played must be protected.  'Bad game pollution' is
already a serious problem in the chess variant world.  If you wish to, in
effect, give the public 10,000 unique games to play, then it is your
responsibility to adequately playtest and analyze every damned one of
them.  Otherwise, please do NOT do it!  To be sure, noone has the right to
carelessly or lazily give the public a package of, in effect, 10,000 unique
games ... knowing that the vast majority of them are defective.  Hence, a
program designed to play 'Capablanca Random Chess' must NOT be capable
of loading ANY flawed starting arrays for people to waste time and
frustrate themselves playing.

I realize this entails a vast amount of work but if someone wishes to be
rightfully known as the inventor of, in effect, a couple-few thousand
unique, 'high-quality' (rather than 'low-quality') games, then this is
what they must do to earn it.

'And I think it is totally unnecessary.  Fischer Random Chess has 960
different set-ups, and probably, by now, all have been played at least
once, but *NO* organized effort has been made to test each and every one
by high-level Chess players for playability.  In fact, FRC doesn't even
try to avoid unprotected pawns.  Considering the number of FRC
enthusiasts, I doubt it's necessary.'

Popularity is no guarantee or proof of quality.  Do you also doubt that
quality is necessary?

Notwithstanding, what 'Bobby Fischer' and others have been disgracefully
derelict in doing should not be imitated.

'As long as white and black have identical setups (mirror-symmetry, not
rotational-symmertry) the game appears to be fair.  I see no reason why
Capablanca Random Chess would not be fair, especially since Dr. Scharnagl
has excluded all setups with unprotected pawns.'

Unavoidably, fairness must be proven individually for every unique game
studied as a permutation of the set.

I am very pleased to find that Dr. Scharnagl has already established rules
for determining a select list of permutations.  Perhaps, he is already far
more aware than I of what he needs to do in the future to achieve success
for his project.