Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck" (potential heresy

On Apr 2, 1:22 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
> richardhut...@[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!

As a set of rules, chess is great in and of itself.  It has been
tested and proved by a community of players, and works for what it is
intended.  One can argue that it is potentially "kludgy" and not
elegant in how it does things, but all this is the result of
evolutionary development, and not some master creator. It works as is,
and things are in harmony.  The issue isn't with the game, but with
the reality some run into that play it.    As for a list, look at what
has been stated by people all over regarding issues they have with
it.  Observe how different grandmasters, from Capablanca and even
before, have stated what they have.  If everything was just great, why
do you see grandmasters of note, wanting to do this and that
different. Capablanca adds two new pieces (not a new idea, as it has
been proposed before).  Fischer promotes shuffling of the board (and
Chess960 is catching on).  People even have done Bughouse.  You have
Kasparov recommending a computer-human tandom approach.  Recently, you
have Seirawan bring up his answer to Chess.  These are what people
have spoken on.  It is over and over.   Besides this, you don't even
have Chess on TV.  It fails to draw at all.  This is rationalized as
"Oh, we are just too brainy for the average Joe who would rather drink
beer and oggle cheerleaders".  You run a tournament for $1.5 million
in Mexico last year, and no one in the world cares.  It isn't that the
set of rules is a problem, per-se, but the fact is that the game isn't
fully serving the community of players, potential or otherwise.  It
rides on its laurels and tells people to make suggestions about this
and that, "There is NOTHING wrong with chess that merely having some
mature people can't fix".  I will say, if things were going well, then
you wouldn't be having these issues.  Do you think poker has less
problems?  It doesn't even have an association for it, and it is
functioning and growing.  Oh, but this will be rationalized in a lot
of different ways.    If it wasn't for the name recognition, then it
wouldn't have much, in light of all these issues.

Beyond this, do I need to go and explain about the draw issue that
happens on the highest level?  The scoring system is codified for
draws. These are the tournament rules.  People make excuses and
rationalize this and that.   Its time control SUCKS for spectators,
and this is also rationalized by saying the masses is idiots who don't
get it.  Not growing is taken as a badge of honor, not a problem.  Oh,
you manage to pitch it as some sort of educational tool, and hope that
someone manages to hope tax dollars fund it in schools as teaching.
Maybe you get more interested into it.

In other words, opening lines that are played out that have been seen
over and over.   Unless one plays suboptimally,

> 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"?

What  I was trying to do is recognize that a bulk of players are FIDE
purist out there, and suggestions about the direction chess could head
in, complete with possible changes to the rules, is considered
heresy.  This crowd would be a number of people you find at chess
clubs.  I know a club where I am local that it is FIDE Chess and that
is it (ok, Speed version, due to their time limits).  For them, what I
discuss here IS heresy.  I acknowledge what I write as possible heresy
and leave it at that.  I know this from personal experience actually.

> 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?

If would be great if I found the exact quote on it.  That is an over-
the-top paraphrase of what chess player had said, how Chess was some
sort of game handed down by the divine.    I figured I would be a bit
over the top here, to have people say that is "absurd" and then move
on with the discussion.

- Rich