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

On Apr 3, 6:52 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
> I think you need to focus.  You are all over the map, first talking
> about changing the rules of chess, then the rules for organizing
> tournaments, now about chess federations.  Pick one topic and discuss
> that. Then, later, pick another and discuss that.

And my comments about considering a change in the chess rules is
considered heresy by you.  "There is nothing wrong with the rules" is
what you argue back.  A large list can be mentioned pointing to this,
and then the words come back there is nothing wrong.  This is a
statement which calls any changes to the rules as heresy.  When I list
a bunch of examples, they get ignored.  Even your comment about
Chess960 points to comments by you that anything not FIDE Chess isn't
chess.  Chess960 isn't chess, it is some other game, as if it it is
Go or Checkers.  Not that it is a VARIANT on chess, but another game.
In other words, only FIDE Chess is chess.   Anything else is entirely
different game.

And it is this mentality that will kill what is thought of as chess
being able to adapt over time, crystalized in a perceived perfection
(complete from time control down to the tournament scoring).  By the
way, good luck dealing with the draw issue.  Oh, it isn't really any
issue, only at the highest levels?  Well, the highest levels are what
the media cares about and what gets interest in a game.   So, shoot,
let's have 80%+ draws there, because that is what tradition says.
Let's have the greatest argument be over Nigel Short demanding his
opponent lose a game, because he refused to shake Mr. Short's
hand.

- Rich