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

This is a philosophical piece for the most part meant to give thought
to where things can head, and why.  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.  It is a piece to ponder, refute, consider
insane, or thought of value.  I am not going to lay out here the exact
form, but lay out what I believe is a direction chess could in that
would be worth considering.  Please DON'T cross-post this to politics,
and try to keep it as a philosophical discussion.  For those who think
this is off, look at the changes that have been made to chess.  The
clock has been played with and so on.  Scoring on the tournament level
has been considered also.  It goes on and on.  Anyhow, onto the core
of the document.

I believe the framework of chess can be addressed now so that we never
turn chess into a solved game.  I personally believe there is part of
the answer in a game like Seirawan Chess, or a pocket version with
reserves, but I don't think they alone have the answer.  It also
doesn't address the framework issue either that gets chess stuck, and
all the classic abstract strategy game (stuck here means set on a path
to being "solved", without a way to adjust before it does).

My take on Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is that you don't solve the
systemic issues with a certain set of rules by creating more rules of
the same type.  If it is show, for example with chess, that a set
configuration of chess pieces on the board eventually produces
something that is solved, then changing the configuration of the
pieces on the board alone doesn't resolve it either (one time,
fixed).  You can change the their starting position (aka Chess960/Pick
your Army/MetaChess or the V and X versions of IAGO Chess), the layout
of the board at start (and also changing it during play, aka Beyond
Chess), or when the pieces enter the game (IAGO/Seirawan/Pocket Knight/
Pocket Mutant), and help to push things out further.  If you build
into the framework by which you can do all of the above, you buy more
time.  What regular chess has now is not a way to make chess get
"unstuck", allowing it to adjust over time.  I suggest all of the
above be considered and integrated, and the players settled on what
works best.   Eventually even this mix of everything leads to a
"stuck" position as the playing community may figure out what is
optimal.  By then, some other people will need to come up with another
layer of rules to insure things are unstuck.

I can't say this for certain, but I do know unsticking chess by doing
all of the above should likely buy chess another 1000 years, using all
of the above methods described.  The key to having it get unstuck is
to have it done in a way that it is evolutionary, so the playing
community can migrate over time and get used to the changes.  Also
added to the mix are "mutators" which are meta-changes to how the game
works that get added during play.  PlunderChess, for example, is built
on a mutator that is active from the start, pieces fusing together.
Even these added can have an impact, and force people to think more
creatively, relying on principles.  These changes act as weather, and
another key element to getting chess unstuck (and other abstract
strategy games for that matter).  All these elements help to battle to
keep a game from getting stuck, without the use of random element, or
hidden information, which is the standard method used to unstick a
game.  Like, the case of backgammon, luck prevents it from getting
stuck for a long time.  Stratego uses hidden information, and the
bluff element causes players to play other players.  In this you need
to know your opponent more than the environment.  Because of this, a
game like poker can be played even 1000 years from now, because you
play the players, and luck also offsets (hidden information+luck).
Magic: The Gathering, and also Cosmic Encounter also relate to this,
which has in its makeup things that continue to change the rules.  I
believe such mutators can be applied to a game like chess, but not in
such a chaotic manner.  In other words, you can have a game that is a
pure abstract strategy game, but where the rules do change during the
course of a game, if the players control when the rules come into
effect and the potential rules are fully known by all players in the
game.

Please feel free to comment here.  I ask people to consider finding
some merit in this, taking what they will of value and discard the
rest.

Thank you for your time...
- Rich