George Duke wrote on Fri, Jun 6, 2008 04:36 PM UTC:
Gary Kasparov in promotion for his 1990's Computer matches repeatedly
represents himself as ''mankind's last stand'' against Computer. Then
he lost to Deep Blue in 1996 and claimed there was at least one move that
was not recognizable ''computer move,'' whatever that means. I think
''Chess Variants'' biggest problems are twofold, one the same Computer
dominance problem of OrthoChess. There must be solution for it, or all
these games will continue obvious decline. Problem Two, the other one
is the quality problem, how to determine good games. Who decides? I have
said within game conversations to different individuals over years, there
are ''prolificists'' (having more than 15 CVs) whose every CV I
personally would be ashamed to put my byline on, had they been my own idea
or ''invention.'' Yet these games keep pouring out and get published. And the
more self-promotion, or outspokenness, the more attention for many, many
atrocious CVs. There is serious divide between two opposing camps, not
explainable away by debating points. Embarassingly, there is frequently not even common language for evaluation. One prolificist recently indicates complete ignorance of the difference between compound piece and multi-path piece -- concepts at opposite poles from each other. Same problem of prolificism blends into the sheer number of ''inventable'' creations possible, no one really addresses. The Betza Piece Values VI article, recently commented, suggests so many quadrillion -- get that 10^15 and more theoretically workable -- separate pieces, by commenter Levi Aho's
calculation, not to mention games-rules' sets. Somehow those without
stake in own inventions must start winnowing some categories, and
maybe some actual Rules-sets would emerge. Lately Hutnik indicates some intention of the sort, but on side touts Calvinball with ever-changing infinity of Rules-sets.
