"That piece already exists"

Whenever I come across someone commenting on a new chess variant piece, "We already have a piece just like that" or "I know a piece that moves similarly/exactly like that," I typically respond with the following (in favor of the person who invented a chess piece).

Why should it matter? The "inventor" spent a deal of time and used a (good/great) deal of personal innovation to have created it him- or herself.

Truth be told: every chess variant piece that has ever existed has already been "invented" by "inventors" who came before us, who we don't know about; and of whom don't know about us. And, "inventors" before them have already come up with "their" idea before they even came along. We humans are hardly "original", since we're all intelligent in the same way that humans are biologically designed to be intelligent. 

(On a tangent, I believe I once saw a documentary about an "ancient battery". Apparently, some ancient Egyptian(?)/Greek(?) already discovered a way to circuit and store electricity for certain necessity uses before we modern westerners did. So, I guess Edison's not the true creator of the incandescent lamp, eh? tsk)

With that being said, don't be so quick to dismiss an "inventor's" creative work or idea simply because it resembles some chess variant material that you've already known about. The "inventor" did not know about those ancient "inventors" and can't claim them as predecessors. It's insulting to to a person who expended personal effort to make his/her chess variant material fun, playable and enjoyable for people to use.

I've expressed this sentiment at least a couple of times in the "Let's Invent Some Really Weird Chess Piece" thread; and elsewhere where chess variants are involved.

What are your thoughts on this?

If a person would announce "Australian chess" with a Kangaroo that moves like a Rook but captures by jumping one piece, there's 2 ways we can look at it. I would believe that this person failed to put some very minimal effort to check what's already there in the world of chess variants. The possibility that a piece already exists does not rule out the possibility to do a tiny bit of exploration, so that the most obvious things are identified

But even if an inventor honestly  missed something, I would find it worth the effort to connect things that should be connected and related in the world of chess variants. To keep a complete view on it and without an intention to disqualify any invention or inventor.

That's not always true. It's not even possible for every possible chess piece to have been described, if the possibilities for new pieces are infinite. 

I agree that we shouldn't dismiss an idea just because it's not completely original, but I don't see any problem with pointing out that a piece was actually used before. That takes nothing away from the fact that someone else thought of it too. 

I hope you all don't think I abandoned my own thread. I simply haven't been on long enough these few days. But, now that I am,

What are the 'official' sources to check for 'official' variants? How can any 1 human possible know all the 'official' faeries that exist in the world today? How much or little effort to check for said-'official' faeries is deemed enough or not enough? Do 'prominent' inventors have a bigger say of their variants over those who are lesser-known?

In this world of chess, I'm more than confident that if a faerie piece (or, by extension, a chess variant game on the whole) is well-known, the inventor would have already known about it. Lesser "official" pieces are sometimes hard to keep track of, and that is the focus of my point.

If anything, though, I was mainly speaking on those who point out "unofficial" pieces having already existed before "unofficial" piece. In the "Let's invent some weird pieces thread", there were 'inventors' who regularly comment "I already invented a piece like that"; or "someone in this thread had thought up something similar to that." All the 'inventors' of this thread have created "unofficial" pieces.

Basically, that's you say "potato", I say "potahto".

I was simply giving a very loose, general rule-of-thumb. I realize that it's not 100% all-accurate, but it's decent enough to warrant merit.

My only point is that you should anticipate by default that the 'inventor' might take some level of offense to that comment; which, chances are, would cause problems. In the 'inventors' eyes, you're at least partly dismissing his/her ideas on the grounds that you've already heard it before. All you've acknowledged is that his/her idea is "unoriginal", without giving thought to the efforts and time and mental energy to make it come to life.

(Perhaps if some fun-hearted 'inventor' came up with something on a casual fickle, they probably wouldn't be offended. Of course, we shouldn't  assume that, on average, most pieces are created with that level of levity.)

“Australian chess” sounds like a nice idea 

My point was that there's nothing necessarily dismissive about mentioning other games that use the same piece. If you think of a brilliant new idea, it doesn't at all diminish your accomplishment if you learn that someone else you've never heard of thought of the same idea before you. Also, think about how it would feel if you think of a great new idea, but nobody really notices, and then a year later someone else comes up with the same idea and gets all the credit for it. 

That is a completely wrong assumption. The world is crowded with people who think that a piece moving as Queen or Knight would be a great and original idea.

And if someone ignorant is offended by being made to look ignorant... Well, he'd better get used to that, or amend his ways. That is called education. Spare the rod, spoil the child!

Chess variants are somewhat like science; priority counts. You don't earn much credit nowadays when you point out that something round can be used for moving around heavy objects with less friction... There might be only a few truly 'official' variants (i.e. variants for which rules are defined by associations / federations with millions of members, such as International Chess, Xiangqi, Shogi or Makruk). But there are prestigeous books, magazins and websites about other chess variants, which describe historic and modern chess variants, and allow people to publish their own designs. I am thinking of Pritchard's book, or chessvariants.com.

Being mentioned in any of those places is as good as being 'official'. But often people that are completely unaware even of the existence of any of these appear in discussions here to propose 'new' inventions that in fact have been known for centuries. That is as silly as proposing the wheel as a new idea.

How about this: try to come up with something that at least isn't yet in Wikipedia? Check the wiki list of fairy chess pieces to help avoid repeating ideas.

I must admit that I once "invented" camelrider and zebra (giraffe) rider that are already there, but I promise that my other suggestions in the "weird pieces" are not there yet.

Very good. 

That, however, hasn't so far discredit the driven home main point of my thread here: that there are people who compare unofficial pieces to the existence of other unofficial pieces' many of whom are chess.com variant "inventors" who comment on the works of other chess.com variant "inventors".

Furthermore, it doesn't take away the fact that "official' pieces that we read on Wikipedia or chess magazines are, by large, not unprecedented. (People haven't thought about combining the Knight and the Bishop/Rook before Capablanca's time?? Surely, Capablanca should have done his research before inventing what we hold as an "official" variant, Capablanca's chess?) We give credit to pieces that are crowned "official", while dismissing the time and efforts of those who put in equal effort to create the pieces that he/she didn't know other humans may have already created.

@BattleChessGN18 Is there any particular thread or online comment, that you can provide a link to, that is exemplary in this matter?

It is well-known amongst variantists that Capablanca Chess was merely the third time a  variant on a 10x8 board with BN and RN as additional pieces was proposed, the first recorded version (by Pietro Carrera) as old as 1617.

So I don't see your point. Why would it be better to 'dismiss' Carrera's work by failing to mention him in connection with the BN and RN compounds, then to 'dismiss' Capablanca's work by also mentioning Carrera (and Henry Bird)?

Come now, HGMuller. I think you know the dishonesty of that statement. 

Many variantist, including myself, did not know that; which particularly supported my point.