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.