George Duke wrote on Sat, Apr 5, 2008 03:54 PM UTC:
1) The classification system 'a-e' for Gating-drops is incomplete and
could easily become 'a-z' without much effort. That is, for anyone
accepting the prolificist ethos.
2) What if OrthoChess were 7x7 or 6x6 (closer to 1950's Los Alamos)? Then we would all suspect that, even with all Hutnik's suggested idiosyncratic
methods, Chess would become 'stuck' again in 10 or 80 years. 8x8 seems
to be right on the threshold, or cusp, or interface, of inevitable
difficulty, whatever is tried in later-added Drops, randomized openings,
or introduced exotic pieces etc. However there is no proof of that.
3) Is Chess a formal axiomatic system, after David Hilbert and Kurt Godel? No, because Chess, except allegorically, does not purport to represent reality like Mathematics. So long as all lines of play are not solved, then some lines are unsolved, probably most when considering higher board sizes; and probability as to best lines of attack have already entered players' algorithms for play, or heurisitic equations, without the need for more structuring of hidden information.
