On May 15, 4:25 pm, Harald Korneliussen <vinterm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> IMO there's nothing wrong with going commercial,
I'm not claiming there is, in any kind of moral sense. I approve of
people making money from their honest work.
But in a practical sense, I think that some games are suited to being
proprietary; people expect this, for that type of game, and the games
return value that is worth a premium and isn't diminished by one
company's owner****p of the game. Monopoly, Milles Borne, Trivial
Pursuit, The Settlers of Catan, and so on.
Abstract skill games, though, seem to have too much competition from
the traditional games. And there's a certain status thing for being an
expert Chess, Checkers, or Bridge player that is less likely to be
present for a proprietary game - or even a new game. So the investment
of effort to learn to play a game well seems to be more effectively
placed with a traditional game.
I'm trying to pin down the different factors that influence the
success of a game, so that people who feel we need something to be
done to Chess - because it has too many draws, or too many book
openings - would have a useful direction in which to proceed.
Variations similar to Capablanca Chess have been produced in
*profusion* over the ages, and have not caught on, for example.
John Savard
|
