This is particularly useful for determining what game elements are bounded vs unbounded (infinite).

Many Rules Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/manyrules.html

91 and 1/2 Trillion Falcon Chess by George Duke:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSninety-oneanda

Perhaps other people can find other things. The IAGO Chess System I happened to put out provides an additional framework for managing thing, but doesn't have these. Anyhow, anyone have any other ideas?

I know the use of mutators could also play part, as would a shuffle, or even gating/drops. The basic idea is to have a theoretical game which is able to never be played with the same rules twice. This theoretical game, if studied, then would find common underlying strategies to what works across all forms of chess.

I see this so far:
1. Board size and shape. A board can theoretically be infinite in size. Because of this, it can theoretically take on an infinite number of shapes (shapes representing the number of spaces it has, and where they are located).
2. The number of players (and also number of teams).
3. Time control: Amount of time each player has to play.
4. Play to points in a chess tournament: Players can play to an infinite number of points.

Probably unbounded (no sure):

• Turn order and sequence of play. This is based off the way progression works. There may be a limit to how many times a player can move in a row, given a minimum number of pieces, which the victory conditions can always be met. In light of this, this may not be infinite.

Some that I am uncertain about:

• The number of unique pieces. Is there an infinite number of ways a piece can act on a chessboard?
• Number of pieces on a board and their mix. If a board is finite size, then this should mean there can only be so many piece combinations on a board, right?
• Reserve pool mix. It is theoretically possible that you can have an infinitely large reserve of pieces that can be dropped in from every turn, but I would argue there is the possibility for a board to get clogged up with so many pieces, that it isn't infinite. Even shuffling the reserve doesn't resolve.
• Adding new rule types. Are there really an unlimited number of different rule types that can be added to chess, that make it unlimited.

What I don't see as unlimited:

• Shuffles. Unless you have a theoretical unlimited number of pieces on an infinitely wide board, it doesn't look infinite to me.
• Piece names and look. This doesn't functionally change how a game is played.
• Board colors. Unless the rules governing pieces is governed by color of the board, this is irrelevant to how the game is played.
• Space shape. I would argue there is only a finite number of ways that spaces can be fit together that they would fit together. Now, the combination of these pieces definitely could potentially fit under the unlimited category.

Please reply with others and comment.

You can find the rules to Calvinball here (unofficial):
http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/

For the discussion of Calvinball Chess, I would to focus on the ONE permanent rule regarding Calvinball on that page:
Permanent Rule: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice.

So, in light of this, I would like to make another suggestion to the objective of Chess of Tomorrow project. How about producing a framework that would enable a person to be able to NEVER play the chess the same way twice? If this were the case, what exactly would the framework need to be like. You can do an extreme version where it is done at start, or have it change on the fly.

So when doing Calvinball Chess, or the Chess of Tomorrow, it has one permanent rules. Person engaged in Calvinball Chess may never play chess the same way twice, with the exact set of rules. A softer version would be, that playing a different side would count as playing it different.

Give some thought to this a bit, when thinking the Chess of Tomorrow project. What Heraclitus could do is serve as a basis for the goal. Then change a person to a COMMUNITY of players, or ALL players of the game. To what extent is this possible, and how can the Chess of Tomorrow make this possible?

As I see it, that would end up being an X-Class game (Based of C-Class rules), which could become V-Class once people approve of it.

On this note, if IAGO Chess System is used, we are going to need to do more work, and cut the confusion a bit. I am starting to confuse myself, with the IAGO Chess game and its classes, and also there being the IAGO Chess System classification for games. This will definitely need to be cleared.

A number of the previous group of CVers were very interested in "the next chess"; sadly, almost none are currently active at the CV site, but if approached right, I don't see any reason why a good number of people wouldn't be interested in working on "crossover" chess games. I will certainly offer some of my work. An adaptation of Short Chess, found here on the wiki under "8x8 variants", might be something that would fit into a first look at your project.

Joe

Maybe we can look to actually have this as a project. This thread can be a start. Maybe get a wiki entry people can edit with it. I happened to do the necessary editing for this, to get the links to work right.

I am up for changing the terms and conditions of it so it is more flexible to use, without losing that it will build communication rather than fragment, and people can use it for commercial purposes, such as bundling the rules in books they are working on or with pieces they sell. I definitely interested in having it changed and mutate it over time, as is best determined. It is meant to start with FIDE Chess also and provide a logical flow into variants. It is a starting point for the discussion, but not the only thing. It is meant in order to have variants taken seriously also, and legitimize tournaments in them, and give credibility to people who play variants.

So, to this end, I would want to see who else wants to get involved here. Please speak up on this. I would like to hear it. Please take this as not myself wanting to take things over, but the community to take ownership of the environment and help make it more reflective of their wishes.

To this end, I will look to push for ONE rule to be added to all future versions of chess. That rule states that your game equipment must map to your rules. Physical versions of future chess should not have people flipping rooks to make them into queens and so on. This is fine when you just have a queen. But what happens when you have new Capablanca pieces, exactly what does the rook represent? Do people want to codify that a flipped rook is a new wildcard piece that represents whatever people want it to be in the game? Fine, I would then ask that get put into the rules. I would like to add my take that this hole in normal chess rules is a barrier for adoption of variants. Here is a chance to have variant pieces get into chess, and the flip rook (not in the rules) is automatically set to a queen. Anyhow, that is my take on this. I would like others to speak up. And this is the point of the "Chess of Tomorrow" project. It isn't one person's voice, but what the community can agree to.