On my web page, at

http://www.hypermaths.org/quadibloc/chess/cheint.htm

I discuss the fact that people have, particularly in recent times,
proposed variants of chess in order to remedy perceived defects in the
game.

I note three things about the game of chess that could be considered
as problematic.

The first is that playing chess reasonably well - that is, with a
reasonable expectation of winning once in a while against the
opponents one is likely to meet at the local chess club - involves, at
too early a stage as to be appropriate for the beginning learner, a
need to commit to memory a considerable amount of opening theory.

Most variants of chess that have been proposed, whether an enlarged
version, or a randomized version, have been proposed to address this.
On my page, I offer my own attempt to address this more effectively,
by randomizing the type of pieces used, while maintaining the symmetry
of the layout.

The second is that chess competitions involve quite a number of draws.

I propose a slight change in the scoring of chess matches to address
this. Sometimes it is felt, or claimed, that some chess variants will
help with this as well to some extent.

The third is that appreciating a chess game played at a high level
requires understanding chess well, while appreciating an athletic
competition does not require one to have abilities even approaching
the rare abilities of the competitors.

Although there is the Sherlock Holmes effect - the right move becomes
obvious after it is played - that mitigates this, I admit that I am at
a loss to see how this can be remedied.


In a newsgroup about the television show "Enterprise", which is the
latest successor to the mantle of Star Trek, following "Star Trek: The
Next Generation", "Deep Space Nine", and "Voyager", it happened that
someone mentioned that he made use of descriptive notation in a
discussion and many readers did not even recognize it, and some
discussion about chess and chess variants ensued.

As the creative team behind "Enterprise", Rick Berman and Brannon
Braga, have sometimes been remarked as having made use of the element
of glamor to improve ratings, this led me to realize that I had not
recognized a *fourth* defect of the game of Chess that may forever
doom it to being unable to realize the sort of corporate sponsorship
that is bestowed upon, for example, the Super Bowl.


You will, no doubt, recall the furor that accompanied the recent
remarks of a Brazilian soccer official on ways to improve the
popularity of women's soccer. And it was reasonable that his comments
would be subject to denunciation.

For women soccer players to switch to skimpier outfits merely to
titillate the spectators would be to place the sport open to ridicule
and to insult their status as athletes.

Thus, gratuitous skimpiness in athletic costume is out.

But it certainly is true that many athletic activities cause athletes
to break out into sweat, or require athletes to have freedom of
motion. Thus, in the natural course of events, some athletic costume
is briefer than regular wear, and this does add to the appeal of
sports such as swimming, diving, surfing, tennis, or soccer.

Here, then, is the fourth incurable problem of Chess. Because chess is
played sitting down, and is not a physical activity, it offers no
legitimate excuse for revealing costume on the part of its female
players!

With such a disadvantage, how can it possibly achieve true popularity
among mass audiences of the common people?

I suppose that one could consider a shift of emphasis. While having
women - and doubtless the men too - customarily play chess
competitively in bathing costume would be merely ridiculous, one could
seek after a more appropriate form of glamor. For the high-level
televised events, whose players would be less impecunious than the
common run of rated chess players, one could insist on a high standard
of formal dress.

After all, a beautiful woman, elaborately coiffed, wearing expensive
jewellery, and a long black gown of timeless elegance... can offer a
tasteful visual appeal...

without having to show a whole lot of skin!


It should be clear, though, that I am not proposing even *that*
seriously. Chess is what chess is, and tacking on anything after the
fact - why not play chess in venues with psychedelic wallpaper designs
to improve its visual appeal - is hardly going to be an enduring way
of increasing its appeal. Chess is not football (which is well known
for remedying the fact that it is mainly played by men, and men who
are fully covered by elaborate protective gear, by adding
*cheerleaders*... but yet it is usually watched for the football
itself) and it can hardly attempt to get anywhere by pretending
otherwise.

Neither having chess players arrive in formal dress, nor providing
other appropriate sensory delights (say by having them play using
well-crafted chessmen on boards and tables of the finest wood) is
bad... although it is true the endangered status of African elephants
certainly makes it harder to find a *really* high-quality material for
the white pieces... but the window-dressing is not the game.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html