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

You are ambitious on the behalf of abstract games, I respect that. But
I just don't agree that we need to change chess to "buy it another
1000 years" or even a hundred. For one thing, Chess will live on even
if it doesn't become mainstream (or mainstream enough for you). For
the other, Chess has not stopped evolving, although it may look
superficially like it.

It's just that today, the benefit of playing with well-established
rules we've spent decades exploring outweighs the benefits that can be
had from tweaking them. The chess players say so, by continuing to
prefer it. It's their call to make - sorry if I'm wrong, but I don't
think either of us (or Sanny) are good enough Chess players to decide
the future of that game. We're just not the main stakeholders in this.

If Chess really was in danger of being "solved" or turned into a less
satisfying game, steps would be taken, like they were in competition
Checkers. Chess players would then start to switch over more
permanently to these conservative variants that various grandmasters
have proposed.