Enter Your Reply

I've read through this thread a few times now, and have some idea of what
to say. As always in a large group of people, we have positions that can be seen as polar opposites, and enough people of either persuasion to keep some interesting conversations going. As an aside, is there a third way that can accommodate both of these positions and deal with their issues?

Sam, you have expressed the position of one pole better than I could ever
hope to. And set out a plan of action that would concentrate the bulk of
games played here on 1 single variant at a time. HG's work has given
values for the pieces that are workable and consistent, so all you really
need for any Capa setup, such as Schoolbook, is some opening studies.
Wouldn't these be far more quickly and effectively done if you got some
playtesters together and ran several full-kibitz opening-variations
playtests of the same game? The object would not be to play games, but to
test out possibilities in openings. I do not mean to just push wood, but
for each player to look for the best moves and counter-moves in a
designated opening, and examine all the interesting possibilities of the
first 10 moves, say. 

Play one version out, then go back and follow up on something you thought
of but didn't do. Then do it again. Play a different opening against each
other playtester at the same time. You will rapidly gain a vast amount of
data for analysis, and it will be gathered from as many different
perspectives as possible. I see that as a solid and fruitful project for a
few people that can provide some real data for comparisons. If you organize
it as a 'Potluck Playtest' session, then each playtester may bring his or
her own game, and playtest that game with everybody else, while also playtesting each game everybody else brought. 

But there is Larry Smith's point of view [the one which goes: 'games are
fun - more games, more fun'], which I'd like to expand on. I enjoy more
than one game, and more than one form of game. I also really enjoy
designing games. [I was an automation expert in the post office, so I did
more than my share of endless variations on one theme. ;-) I prefer to
expand my horizons.] I like interesting new pieces, if I can understand
and use them. I like new board shapes that work. I like good fusion games
like Graeme Neatham's Save the Standard, a cross of chess with Tafl.
There are a lot of reasonably simple games that fuse 2 genres and so might
offer a gateway for many or, more likely, some fun for the handful of
players who encounter these games. 

The best of these are the cutting edge, the source and inspiration for new
ideas, innovation in chess. Some like innovation, some don't; it's a
question of taste.