Rich Hutnik wrote on Sat, Apr 5, 2008 04:39 PM UTC:
George, I would like to make several comments here:
1. Gating is supposed to be a definition, and a subset of drops. I am
sure there are lots of way to do this. The purpose of it is to give
people an idea as to how it differs from a standard drop. It also
involves the relocating pieces on the board. I am sure that people can
come up with more. I believe the key is to have a stable definition, and
then list some major examples. I am of the belief it is an important term
to consider, debate, and reach an agreement over. The end and final shape
isn't as important as what it is.
2. The issue of the 8x8 board is that it is now a convention, and a
starting point, for testing, because it is what is readily available, and
has an established chess game being played with millions of people play it
(that being FIDE Chess). What was suggested is ONE approach to this, as a
possible way. And no, I disagree with you on the less than 100 years
approach. What is suggested is to use ALL the possible variant
conventions as a way to expand chess here. This means reserves, it means
mutators, it means different board condition. And with the reserves, it
means changing the mix of pieces. It also means more that this. But what
does matter is there is a common foundation this is all to fit into.
Chess960 isn't going to get stuck in 100 years, why do you think a larger
system will? If you suggest that it will get stuck again in 100 years,
well then this site is doomed to be stuck within 100 years.
As for the IAGO Chess System classes, well it is taking what is seen today
as chess and variants, and expanding it, as a way to think about it. You
have standard stuff (A-Class). Then it is suggested that there be an
evolutionary design, that has a B-Class migration to it. C and M Class
represent the slower fixed one, and the M-Class as the version where a
chess game can migrate to. In the B-Class I am proposing that the piece
mix map to the rules (so we don't have an 8 pawn promote to queens
problem, which breaks when you add any more pieces). Then with the
variants, I propose that you have a V-Class for accepted variants that
work, along with mutators, and pieces. And an X-Class where things can be
experimented with. This is meant as a starting point of discussion.
3. Anything that is a set of rules is axiomatic, as the definition of
axiomatic is rules. So game rules would apply also. What Godel's
incompleteness theorem says that no system of rules can be both complete
and non-contradictory. In other words, every set of rules will end up
producing more rules. In other words, rules keep evolving. This is valid
here. And if you think that games have nothing to do with math, I am sure
that the game theory people will be surprised. And Combinatorial Game
Theorists (this is the foundation abstract strategy games are built on)
would be shocked.
