On Apr 6, 6:14 pm, "markste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <markste...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Apr 6, 12:24 pm, richardhut...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > If this project seems irrelevant to you, and you question why it would
> > be needed, then it wouldn't be for you.
>
> If Chess is fading from its former glory then just let it fade. Let
> the process of natural selection play itself out. The good Chess
> variants will take hold, the bad ones will fall by the wayside, and
> standard Chess will lumber ahead under its own momentum.
>
> There's so much going on in the field of abstract games now. Why put
> all this energy into rejuvenating a relic?
Mark, chess is the first word in "Chess variants" as is the base word
for games that represent an abstraction of war in a boardgame form,
following the conventions of abstract strategy games. So, on that
note, that is where this comes from. And, if it isn't for you, it
isn't for you. This project isn't for everyone out there, just those
who want to think about the future of chess, and have it develop in a
way that creates standards and so on, to facilitate communications. A
key part is having the ability to buy variant equipment, which is
really not doable now, in a meaningful way. New pieces have like a
$5000 or so ramp up cost associated with them.
As for why doing this? An idea is to get chess back to its roots as
an evolutionary design that evolved over time. Also, the idea is to
have variants be integrated into the fullness of the chess experience,
so that what works and what doesn't, can be found, and integrated. In
this also would be dealing with such issues as developing a
handicapping system that works to.
Again, if someone doesn't feel the project is for them, it isn't for
them.
- Rich
|
