On Apr 10, 10:25*am, wrote:

I believe Heraclitean (or is it Heraclitian, as I am using it, not
just full of strife, but never twice) is supposed to be either it is
or isn't.

Then I'm probably not using the term the way you are. I'm just
thinking of my old idea of a basic structure where one chooses one of
a large number of variants in a way similar to the way Checkers
players choose one of a number of three-move openings.

This isn't like Calvinball, where the rule is to change the rules in
the middle of play, so as to not take anything seriously except having
fun.

Nor is it like IAGO Chess, where different pieces are dropped on the
board during play - but made more complicated.

Let's say, for example, one plays on a chessboard where the squares
have numbers printed on them in a random arrangement. The last two
digits of the sum of the numbers on the squares that are occupied by
both players' Pawns (think of this as a hash function of the
position)... indicates one of a hundred different Fairy Pieces - and,
on any turn, a player can choose to either drop a piece in hand for
dropping, or *drop the piece indicated by this number* which also
gives his opponent the same type of piece in his hand to drop later.

So as the game goes on, the type of pieces on the board varies
"randomly", but it's all from the same starting position and rules.

Some rule would have to be added to prevent the board from having on
it almost as many pieces as there are squares, but this is just a
thought example, not a serious variant yet.

But if this is the sort of direction you're thinking of, I don't know
of a good direction to go in to make that kind of variant.

John Savard