It’s for fun. It takes playing pieces most people have available, rules many are familar with, and makes a new game with just a few more rules. For fun.
I agree that more clarification is necessary for this to be adopted mainstream, however that didn't seem to be the intention of the article. i.e. 'fun' for 2 persons knowing each other is highly subjective.
Think of it the other way - some people find it fun just by throwing the dice in turns and whoever has the larger number wins. In this case, there's even a chance for whoever has the huge disadvantage (unlucky) to make a comeback. In cases where it's fatal, either those are added as exceptions e.g. re-roll, or accepted as auto-win. Not unlike some gambling games.
My friends and I had fun adding different rules to existing way of playing various games. We might find out later on that the rule might be incomprehensive, which we could either discard or adjust. It might also never be perfectly balanced. Either way we definitely had fun.
I take the article as more of a "story sharing" than a "new specification" for chess.
The bulk of the post is a description of the new rules with a small anecdote about why they were created.
It seems like the intention of the article was to share the rules. As such, we should be able to discuss those rules. And this person would like to know the reasoning behind the rules as that does give insight. Maybe the rule is counter to the actual goal of the rule and would be better served by another rule. Or to get rid of it entirely.
Because even chess hasn't always been chess. Chess has been developed over years and settled into its state after a lot of refinements.
Obviously you created it to be fun. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with trying. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with even making mistakes. Sometimes you just gotta try shit before you know what works and what doesn't.
I just didn't appreciate the guy's discussion terminating quip.