Enter Your Reply

Let's discuss Black Ghost Chess [a 'George 2011' proposal]. Which
variant did you have in mind? I was one of those who played a standard
black ghost game, and came to the conclusion that the piece overbalances
the game to black. Use of ghosts for both sides is problematical for a
mainstream game because it adds 2 totally different pieces to the standard
orthochess mix that behave differently than the other pieces, and are
basically used to get in the way of the other player. I guess I have an
aesthetic objection as much as anything else. The game didn't feel as
'serious' as chess does to me, because the added pieces are gadflies
rather than troops. While a fascinating idea, ghosts are as much a kludge
as castling or pawn double steps and en passant. It's a feeling of
'add-on' rather than integration. At least, that's my opinion. If
[enough] people agree with that opinion, that would disqualify games with
a ghost.

In general, I'd argue that the 'next chess' would not use outre pieces
- and by that I mean outre for chess players, not us chess heretics. I'd
also argue that the changes would not be of an add-on nature, for
aesthetic reasons. This is my problem with games like Seirawan or the
68-square boards. There is an 'add-on' or a 'lets take this and stick
it into chess' feel about these games that doesn't sit quite right with
me. I'm looking for a good, conservative re-design to upgrade, not an
aftermarket kit bolted to antiquity, for the next chess contenders. I
honestly feel the 80 square 8x10 is a better board for the games proposed
by their creators as good candidates. These games are not disqualified
from being the next chess, but they do have a mark against them.