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

richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

>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 need to difdferentiate between someone preoposing a new game
that is a vatriant of Chess with someone proposing to change the 
way chess is played.

>You have Kasparov recommending a computer-human tandom approach.

That isn't a change in the rules of chess.  It is a change in 
tournament rules, which are already fluid and changable.  You
don't need to propose anything to improve tournament rules.
Just have a tournament with whatever rules you like and be sure
to announce the new tournament rules in advance.

>Besides this, you don't even have Chess on TV.  It fails to 
draw at all.

Changing the rules of chess won't change that.

>You run a tournament for $1.5 million in Mexico last year, and 
>no one in the world cares.

Changing the rules of chess won't change that.

>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".

Whoever told you that got it wrong. There is nothing wrong with 
chess.  Period.  There is nothing that needs fixing about the 
way chess is played.  The rules are just fine.  Nothing needs 
fixing.

>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.

Again, if you want to change the tournament rules, you should talk
about that, and if you wish to change the rules of the game, you
should talk about *that*.  Mixing the two kinds of suggestions makes
it hard to analyse your proposals.

>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.

You are wrong.  You seem to be unable to understand that someone 
might disagee with you because your ideas suck, rather than doing 
so for religious reasons.