Introduction: New Game Designer

It's always great to have people with math expertise on the forums (there are a number of them, which is great for people like me who aren't terribly strong in that area).

I took a look at your site, and I'm quite intrigued. Because I'm at work and don't have headphones, I didn't get a chance to watch the video, but I'll be sure to look at it when I get home.

I haven't used them myself, but this site https://www.thegamecrafter.com/parts gets recommended a lot. I'll probably use them once some of my projects are at the prototyping stage. They also do some publishing (it appears to be a print-on-demand system, but I don't really know the details). They stock a wide variety of pawns, though I don't see any other classic chess pieces.

Speaking strictly from a cost standpoint, it might be easier if you simplified your game so there weren't as many types of pieces. This might not be doable without compromising your vision for your game. At the end of the day, I think you should stick to your vision and fight for the game you want to make, but it might be worth thinking about. I say that because I think you've got a really interesting dynamic with control of certain spaces awarding players different pieces, and through the process of trying to simplify the number of types of pieces you use, you might come up with something that moves the game from a chess variation into something that has broader appeal. What if you narrowed it down to, say, three types of pieces. Are there three chess movements that could be used to simulate a game that plays similarly (maybe pawns, knights, and queens)? Or, since you have a different board, are there new movements you could use that would accomplish the same goal? What about a mechanic where controlling certain spaces would change the movement profile of a certain type of piece (ex: when controlling both red squares, red pawns move like bishops)? You could even do two versions of the game, and put out a mass market variant, which, if successful, could fund the more expensive and complex chess variant (which would have the bonus effect of allowing players to learn the simpler game and then graduating to the more complex game).

I think the reason chess variants typically don't do well is because they're inevitably compared to their parent game. Becoming a decent chess player requires an investment of time and energy and a certain amount of discipline, because chess is completely deterministic. There's no element of chance that allows players of disparate skill levels to compete with each other, so it more or less is not a game people play casually. They either play it or they don't. People who don't play are already intimidated by the complexity of chess, so adding another layer of complexity is even more likely to overwhelm them. People who do play might appreciate the "change of pace" nature of a chess variant, but after a couple games they'll go back to regular chess because that's what they enjoy playing and studying. So either way you look at it, a chess variant has to deal with the immense baggage of the highly revered (and highly feared) game it's derived from.

That's not to say that a chess variant couldn't be successful, but in order to do so, I think it would either have to be so tightly designed that it appealed to the strategy-loving chess players that it became so popular they would think about it and analyse it as much as they do the parent game, or so accessible, people who don't play chess could be easily persuaded to pick it up and would enjoy it once they've do so. Either one is a tall order. If you've got your heart set on a chess variation, I think that's awesome. It just unfortunately means there will be a small market for it, which makes production a challenge, but beyond that, I don't see a reason why your chess variant couldn't become a well-beloved niche game or cult hit.