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

On Apr 4, 3:27 am, Harald Korneliussen <vinterm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.

The thing is that there is momentum in place with chess that keeps it
as is.  The rules also favor the current champion to push draws.
Players on the lower levels, which doesn't matter to the media, don't
see this at all.  And then there is the whole political mess that is
causing the game to not consider new options, but to rally around the
rules, as they are, because it is the rare island of stability.  Put
all these things together, and you aren't going to have any change
going on at all.  This goes all way from Reformed Chess with the new
pawn, to the use of a Bronstein clock, or even something as simple as
a change in the scoring system to change ties.  Things on the whole
are set up that the momentum of tradition squashes anything else,
eventhough people may keep to themselves they would want this change
or that.

If you don't think this momentum is an issue, consider checkers.  The
tournament checkers sets are red and white checkers on a green and
pale board.  Why aren't these sets available, yet checkers is still
sold?  It is the momentum of tradition, which has had an impact on
professional checkers, by the way.  It is red and black checkers on a
red and black board.  This is because this is how it always has been
done, over 100 years now.  People buy them because they are the only
thing available.

What I was considering and proposing is something that not a single
person would do.  But, proposing a possible framework for people to
experiment in and develop a consensus over, that would integrate the
fullness of chess into it.  It would also allow for an experiential
base by which the chess community could then be able to try out new
options, be accepted, and be able to adjust how chess is played the
way the NFL makes needed changes to football, in order to facilitate
its growth.  All s****ts do this, by the way, well at least the ones
that want to keep growing.   Please state what similar changes chess
has made over the past 100 years to facilitate growth?  Has it done
any?

And for those who think that ties are the norm, they use tie-breaker
methods in soccer even, and also NHL hockey uses a shootout.  But
chess isn't a s****t, right?  So if someone is going to argue that,
then why argue in defense of ties by bringing up soccer (football)?

- Rich