Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

richardhutnik@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
>
>> Chess is just fine the way it is.  It doesn't need fixing.
>
>I assume you believe that Chess960 is fundamentally broken then?

Why would you assume that?

>And what are your thoughts on Bughouse and Dark Chess/Kriegspiel?

I love all sorts of variants, some more than others.  That doesn't
mean that chess needs fixing.  Chess is just fine the way it is.

I don't think that liking the 50-yard dash implies that marathons 
are broken, I don't think that likeing deep-sea fi****ng means that 
fly fi****ng is broken, and I don't think that liking chess variations
means that chess is broken.

>Do you see that variants are useful

Useful for what purpose?  I see that some of them are fun to play,
and that's enough for me.

>but not chess, or that variants are heresy?

Either produce actual evidence showing that those who disagree
with you do so for religious reasons, or drop the constant
accusations that they do.  The above is simply a cheap shot
debating trick.  More light, less heat, please.