On May 17, 11:58 am, Quadibloc wrote:
This post is prompted by encountering posts in a newsgroup on Chess
discussing the question of somehow revitalizing Chess.

A lot of Chess games are draws, and quite a bit of book knowledge of
openings is needed to play Chess competitively. These things can be
perceived as problems.

If Capablanca Chess is not the answer, why not something inspired by
Pocket Knight Chess?

That is what Seirawan Chess goes for. You use reserves you bring into
the game. IAGO Chess (the game) is a mix of Seirawan and pocket. You
can do drops or gating, unlike Seirawan that uses just gating. The
idea of reserves is a good way to handicap also.

*SNIP*

Well, upon reflection, I've come up with the obvious answer.

Why would people who have spent a lot of time and effort learning how
to play Checkers as it is simply abandon that investment to move to a
different pond in which they would be the new frogs on the block?

This is why, when a problem with Checkers became inescapably manifest
after the Wyllie-Martins match of 1863, the remedy that was chosen was
not switching to Polish Checkers. Instead, the remedy that was chosen
was the one that involved the *least change* to the game, to maximize
the relevance of the skills of those who were at the top of the
existing Checkers world. This even explains why the switch to eleven-
man ballot, which involves a slightly larger change, is being
resisted.

There is equipment issues which is why they go with the 3 move
opening. The analogy of the 3-move opening in Chess is Chess960.
Checkers is also experimenting with 11 man aside checkers.

And that made perfect sense, since they were the only ones with a
problem. Ordinary duffers could still play Checkers the old way
without fear of it being a futile pursuit in the sense of tic-tac-toe.
And, for a while, there was the option of learning to play Camelot
well instead of learning to play Checkers well, although its inventor,
George Swinnerton Parker, was not born until 1867, four years after
the Wyllie-Martins match.

That option could be said to have ended in 1986, when Inside Moves
went off the market... but there are still those who suggest the
possibility of a revival.

The World Camelot Federation (Inside Moves) is still around. It is
hardly the successor to checkers, but a good game in its own right.

If switching from Checkers to Chess is a big jump, switching from
Chess to Go is a bigger one still that hardly bears considering, even
if Go seems to be thriving.

They aren't even the same type of game. Checkers is multi-
elimination, and Chess is royal elimination.

In any case, the case of Checkers confirms strongly my intuition that:

- For a new game to get recognition enough so that people pay
attention to who its world champion might be is extremely difficult;
and

- A reform to an old game to reduce draws and make its upper-level
competitive activity more exciting should be one which involves the
minimum of change, maximizing the relevancy of the existing skills of
the game's current masters.

All the world of abstract strategy games is facing same issues,
although each game has its own angle on it. What you describe is an
ideal. You can't underestimate the need for easy access to equipment
(this is one reason for Camelot not being adopted).

And recognition is in spades with chess, but doesn't mean that people
pay attention. Chess is recognized, and there was a $1.5 million
tournament in Mexico last year. Who cared about it? The World Mind
Sports Games is going on in China this year, and know many that care?
It is discussed in passing.

What needs to happen is the games in question need to get an improved
spectator sports angle to them, and justify sufficiently good enough
ratings on TV, they stick around. A lot can be done here, and must,
but that is what you are looking at.

On the chess front, a simplified chess game would help out some, count
it either Near or Simplified Chess. Even go with Simpleton's Chess.
Consider teaching people something that is easy for them to get into
as a starting point.

I also believe you need a bridge between the chess world and the
variant world. I will post my thoughts here on this. if it merits
such.

- Rich