Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck" (potential heresy for FIDE chess purists)

richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>This is a philosophical piece for the most part meant to give thought
>to where things can head, and why.

One problem.  The rest of your post was 100% "where things can head"
and 0% "why".  Like many who propose changes to chess, you have 
neglected to explain what it is about the present game that you 
believe needs fixing.  Would you be so kind as to go back and fill
in this gap for us?  Thanks!

BTW, starting off by insulting anyone who disagrees is usually 
a poor method of initiating a dialog.  If, as you claim, you 
wish to "keep it as a philosophical discussion", why did you start 
with an insulting straw-man argument like "this is potentially 
heresy to those who live and die FIDE chess and consider it handed 
down from the divine as some immutable set of rules that is meant 
to last FOREVER"?  Do you have a direct quote from anyone here 
claiming that the present rules came directly from God, or is that
just something you made up to belittle anyone who dares to disagree
with you?  


-- 
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/>