Single Comment

For most of us, Internet costs money, and playing a game of Stanley Random
Chess would certainly be bound to eat up a lot of time, and therefore cost
a lot of money.  Although you said that SRC is amusing, do you really think
it is worth the money to play it?  For instance, let's put the shoe on the
other foot.  Suppose I (or someone you don't know, but whom I were to
approve of, and you had absolutely no way of locating that person) were
the one to define the 'secret rules' behind Stanley Random Chess, and
she alone were to decide on whether your moves were acceptable or not. 
That kind of a setup could certainly have the potential of driving up
costs, don't you think?  Not to mention 'bandwidth' in the form of
noise, or near-noise.

Would you still find the game amusing enough to play for a few months, or
a few years?

(Now for an 'opening the floodgates' argument:)

The next hypothetical offers us even more food for thought:  suppose a
hundred thousand people or more found my version of Stanley Random Chess
(with my own list of approved but anonymous rulemakers) engaging, would
the increased consumption of bandwidth be worth it to you, to call it
amusing?  Or, if the ante is upped to an even higher stake, would it be
worth it to society?  After all, if robots could be programmed to play
Stanley Random Chess - not that they are /that/ creative - and even if
they would be answerable to their owners alone, and not to society, would
you still find it amusing?