Comments by MarkThompson

I rather doubt that we're going to address the problem of the future of chess. It will either evolve into something new and worthy without anyone's planning it, or it will go softly into the night as checkers and bridge seem to be doing.

The chief problem chess faces, in my opinion, is Scrabblization. By this I mean that chess has become a game like Scrabble, in which an enormous amount of rote memorization has become almost as important, or perhaps even more important, as strategic and tactical intuition -- and this is especially so for one making the move from casual amateur to serious tournament player. Like lovers of checkers and bridge, experts who have invested that effort are emphatic that they're glad they did. But that doesn't attract others to follow after when there are plenty of other strategy games without so much 'book' where they can hope to excel just by having a knack. 

This is just my partly-informed opinion based on remarks I've heard from better players, so I readily admit I could be completely off-base -- I'm no expert at chess. But if I'm right, then chess has gone so far down the road  toward Scrabble that, at this point, I'm suspicious that those who are experts have acquired a distorted view of the game during their years of study. Reading whole books devoted to variations on a single line of play, memorizing openings out to twenty moves, is certainly not what the inventor of Chess had in mind.

This is why I think something like the random-array or (better still) the player-selected-army variants are the likeliest future for chess, if it's to have one at all.

Would it make sense to put a filter on the comments to disallow messages
with the subjects 'Bill', 'Hillary', and 'Bush'? If it's a robot
spamming us this way it might not be smart enough to adapt.

I'm not convinced that these tournaments really identify a 'best player
in the world' (most of the time), or even that there is such a thing
(most of the time). If you were to apply statistical theory to the results
and calculate a confidence level, I doubt that the hypothesis that
'Kramnik is better than Topolov' would get anywhere near the 95%
confidence that's considered standard for scientific purposes.

'Chess Master/Grand Masters will never accept a new game that takes away
their book opening knowledge advantage.'

No, I wouldn't expect them to; they have too much invested in their study
of openings. But if I'm optimistic about the future of Chesslike games,
it's from hoping that the next generation, who haven't become Chess
experts, might be attracted to CV's.

You mean 'patent'. Only a text can be copyrighted.

Another possible variation to address the overstrong knight problem would
be to use a standard board but replace the knights with other pieces, such
as Horses (like knights but without the ability to jump over an
orthogonally-adjacent piece), or Burmese Elephants (Shogi's Silver
General).

I like this idea, it seems like an ingredient that could enhance many
different chesses. Maybe there should be a regular page for this game.

Energy crystals, money, what's the difference. It's stuff you earn by
doing something and pay out to get privileges: by me that's money. And
while I agree that dratping isn't exactly the same as promoting, the
concept is close enough. A space elevator isn't exactly an elevator, but
calling it that makes the idea clearer than coining a new word that's
unrelated to anything in the language -- AND is either
almost-unpronouncable or has a silent letter, what's with that? Silent
letters are vestiges of pronunciations from earlier times, what's the
point of including one in a new coinage? 

My aesthetic preferences are admittedly my own, and though I feel I have
good reasons behind them, I don't expect everyone else to share them.
These things depend on individual judgment, sentiment, and taste. As I've
already said, it's a fine game.

'I also like the open-source approach (maybe make the raw data XML,
plain-text, or both), but there should also be one built-in to this site
as well, so if you don't have your own implementation you can view your
own.'

Sure, the site should have its own 'brand' of ratings. But I mean, it
would be good to make ratings from many user-defined systems available
here also. Just as the system allows users to design their own webpages
(subject to editorial review) and their own game implementations, there
could be a system whereby users could design their own ratings systems,
and any or all these systems could be available here at CVP to anyone who
wants to view them, study their predictive value, use them for tournament
matchings, etc.

Of course, it's much easier to suggest a system of multiple user-defined
rating schemes (hey, we could call it MUDRATS) than to do the work of
implementing it. But if enough people consider the idea and feel it has
merit, eventually someone will set it up someplace and it will catch on.

'And as far as piece names go, no need to justify your choices.  Piece
names are the prerogative of the inventor ...'

Not only that, but those of us who construct our own sets will ultimately
just call the pieces by the names we like, and switch to 'official'
names only for online discussions if needed. Just like players started
calling the elephant a bishop. For instance I always call a B+N a
Cardinal, regardless of anyone who wants me to call it an Archbishop.
And if I ever get around to making a Navia Dratp set, I'm gonna make a
LOT of changes ...

Like that poem, 'The Moon': 

'You say it's made of silver, 
I say it's made of cheese. 
For I am an American, 
And say what I d*** please.'