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

On Apr 4, 1:38 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:00 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
>
> > richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > >And my comments about considering a change in the chess rules is
> > >considered heresy by you.

> He may be making an untrue statement, but he is not making _that_
> untrue statement.

I will state I did engage in a bit of hyperbole, but I have found that
when a game ends up getting very serious dedication to it, it does
take on religious overtones.  Any suggestions to any change are seen
as heresy of a sort.  So, while I end up overstating from a point of
absurdity, out of the intent for people to disagree and say, "Now now,
we aren't THAT intolerant, are we?" it is done in order to then
discuss the possible future and changes.  I do recall a quote (I
forget whom or where) that said something like chess is too serious of
a game to be seen as play, and too unconnected to the rest of life to
be taken seriously.  Someone else can find the right stating of that
quote.  That does remind me of a Steve Wright quote that he doesn't
play boardgames because he doesn't like to buy problems that come in a
box (said as part of an interview, not part of his comedy routine, but
you do see where his humor comes from).

> His remark does not mean "you consider changing the rules of Chess to
> be contrary to the essentials of Christian belief, hence heretical",
> it means "you are among those chess players who have an intense
> emotional reaction to the idea of changing the rules of Chess, based
> on a rigid, irrational attachment to the rules as they are, such that
> your view of changing the rules of Chess is akin to the reaction of
> certain types of religious people to what they view as heresy".

And while no one will actually admit they hold such views, I would say
that everyone who plays chess knows of someone who is more rigid in
their views than they are.

> Given what his statement actually means, and would be understood to
> mean by the average reader, it may still be an unfair characterization
> of your views in this matter. But by playing the confrontational game
> with him, you're *providing* evidence that the latter statement might
> be true.

I have posted multiple messages on chess.misc regarding variants to
chess, and so on.  I have found some people have displayed a dogmatism
in response, that my writing this (and I was even thinking of not
posting this on chess.misc) would end up generating the exact "HERESY"
type comments that were made in the past, so I end up with a slight
nose tweak, stick that (potential heresy for FIDE chess purists).  If
one is a FIDE chess purists, what I said would be considered to be
heresy.  I am curious though, did I call ANYONE on here a FIDE chess
purist?  I said this:  "I will acknowledge that this is potentially
heresy to those who live and die FIDE chess and consider it handed
down from the divine as some immutable set of rules that is meant to
last FOREVER".  Does this fit anyone here?  Do you know of anyone who
can fit that?  You know, you want to do Bughouse, and they look at you
funny.  You want to play speed chess, and the consider it wrong.  For
someone who considers that chess it is now, is perfect (but the only
problems are greedy people doing power plays), then the end result
would be heresy to discuss whether or not something can change over
time.

> Even though you would still be providing absolutely no evidence of an
> objection to changes in the rules of chess that is of a theological
> nature.

It wasn't my intention to provide evidence of that.  I guess my
stating that does show, if someone objects to what I am saying, they
are only proving my point that such individuals do exist, and believe
that the current way FIDE Chess is played is perfect.

People have actually written they want to play the EXACT SAME GAME
that the likes of Kasparov, and other great chess masters in in the
past played.  If this is what people want, then if you take out all
references to religion in my post, the same idea stands that chess is
seen as a perfect game with imperfect people in it.  And that talk,
sounds like what I hear religious people talk about their religion.

- Rich