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

On Apr 5, 5:52 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2:25 pm, Christopher Dearlove <ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> > Back when I used to see the English Bridge Union's magazine, the
> > bridge players had exactly the same concern (falling member****p)
> > and an analogous "silver bullet" solution (simplified conventions).
>
> > Me, I don't believe in silver bullets (that's why I picked that term).
>
> Did the Lone Ranger ever meet the Wolfman?
>
> But I agree with you that there is not going to be a way to increase
> the popularity of Chess massively through a simple rules change.
>
> And, furthermore, a major rules change that creates a new game isn't
> something that is likely to be imposed from the top. Instead, any new
> version of Chess would have to gain popularity gradually, and there's
> really no reason to expect any such version to get very far.
>
> John Savard

I am of the belief that one of the issues variants and any changes
that are run into with chess adapting, is that people think changing a
single set of rules is the answer.  Change the pawn, change the clock,
change this, change that.  This is thinking at the same level.  I had
suggested one possible approach.  But I will stand by that the
framework about thinking about chess will need to change some in order
to have chess adapt.  There will then be a distinct risk, if not done,
chess does deadend, and some other game replaces it.  Maybe Go ends up
becoming the top game in the world, or XiangQi.  You just don't know.
I do believe thinking about change and an evolutionary approach would
provide hope here.  But then, this is is up for debate and discussion,
like in the case of this thread.

- Rich