26.09.2007 17:19, M Winther:


The two latter games are tactically much more creative, something that
appeals to the general amateur. At least Shogi is right now making an
inroad in the West. How will orthochess fare in the competition?

I don't buy your equation "more tactically = more attractive". Maybe
this is the case for the occasional player. But here games of all sort
have been around all the time, where there is much more "action" taking
place. For a lot of people the fact, that so much goes below the surface
in chess is part of the fascination of the game.


I maintain that most orthochess games constitute of woodchopping.
Orthochess allows for moving pieces around until somebody makes a
mistake.

Just moving around pieces without a plan and without regarding the plan
of the other side is quite a sure way of losing a game.

In Chinese Chess games are often rapid, always resolved in a
king attack. Players don't need to waste a lot of time and energy by
many tedious moves.

What you call "tedious" others may call "subtle". Having a wild attack
is definitely a nice thing - from time to time. But for me, for
instance, the game would lose some of its fascination if it were always
a direct attack on the king. I like it that sometimes a game is quite
aggressive in the next game only a small positional error decides the game.

What I find a bit annoying about all those proponents of chess variants
is that they try to sell their babies as improvements, overcoming some
flaws in chess. Actually what they do is changing something in the game
that *they* don't appreciate a lot. And then they try to give the appeal
of some general merit by changing this facette.

The two games are then different and have different characteristics -
but that doesn't imply that one is better than the other.

Greetings,
Ralf