Single Comment

It was reported, possibly relayed through IAGO, that Seirawan and his contingent ''want nothing to do with us,'' want nothing to do with Chess Variant Page, implicitly meaning proliferation the impression being given. If true, why is that? Is there an inevitable and unbridgeable divide? Forget Chess professionals. Why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than chess variantism does? I think CVers share in the blame for their isolation and outcast status, because the prolificist way of making CVs has only come to fruition since 2000 with Internet facility. As a result, excellent games like Rococo do not get played. Problem themes, the way of problemists, were much better at reaching and creating the Chess-loving audience. That was because T. R. Dawson published in mainstream British Chess Magazine, Betza was Chess Master before he got addicted to proliferation, Vukevich was GM for problem-solving, and so on. In other words, there was normal cooperative interface and converging interest in subject matter. It came about because of careful selection of material by the fairy chess champions, Dawson, Parton, Boyer, Loyd, Betza, with respect for their audience, and sensible outreach to OrthoChess enthusiasts.