Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Dr. Milan R. Vukcevich, USA scientist and Chess Grandmaster 1937-2003
proposed this idea to USCF-types as the Future of Chess. Someone should
find his speech, the topic being Rules Changes, I think from Hawaii
convention. Considered for Nobel Prize in science of incandescence and
having lamp-related patents, Vukcevich earns GM title for composition,
like the great Sam Loyd. Now the subject matter of Chess' evolution seems
more taboo in OrthoChess circles than only 6-10 years ago, when Vukcevich
suggested ongoing Mutators, though he did not call them that, since
'Mutators' originates here with Neto in 2000. Secondly, of course in 1920's Capablanca solicited from UK open discussion of the best 'Mutators', as Pritchard's 'ECV' recounts under Capablanca Chess, and probably CVPage has produced in ten years no better ones than those eighty years ago Capablanca found.

Happy New Year to All.

The Doctor stated that in the future teenagers would play chess in Minkowski space (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space);

He also writes of merging computers and people into a unified entity.

I used google to search for the speech about rule changes [i.e., rule changes suggested by Dr. Vukcevich] - but could not find it.

In closing I will mention that I interviewed Dr. Vukcevich on 23 Jan. 1982 for WKSR Radio) when he attempted to break the World Record for a chess simul [this was at Kent State]. Due to a blizzard only 56 people made it. During the interview, Milan gave no hint of a desire to change chess rules; but that doesn't mean they weren't there. In response to one of my questions, 'What separates you from Karpov in regard to being Wold Champion?' he stated that he could be world champion if it wasn't for the fact that he devoted time to his career and to his family. He would need that time for chess.

Best regards to all... g

Vukcevich's speech is about year 2002 in Hawaii, with his newest ideas
before he died;  I shall  post or quote the hard copy filed once located.
He says that, likely, Chess players will want to change the Rules
systematically (on of course 8x8) and intermittently, and that it should
be done democratically within a tournament or else from one tournament to
another for preferred 'Mutators'.   Not having read talk for five years,
I think that part keys off Fischer Random Chess, which we know to be
unoriginal. The 'democratic' process Vukcevich proposes is in error, because that would be like voting on validity of Fermat's Last Theorem, or the value of pi (as incredibly Indiana Legislature know-nothings were on verge of passing  bill 100 years ago that henceforth pi shall have value of 3.2 or so for convenience, before the 'educated' intervened -- heiring Bush and Climate)

Hey, lay off the early-20th century Indiana Legislature! The bill in
question wasn't their own idea and it wasn't worded as flagrantly as
'pi shall be 3.2', it was the work of a crank mathematician who produced
a long, turgid manuscript of bad results, some of them indeed implying that
pi would have a value other than the true one. He sent it to his local
state rep, describing it as a set of wonderful new discoveries, which he
would graciously allow Indiana to use -- for free! -- if only they passed
this bill. The legislators moved the bill along because it was appeared to
be more trouble than it would be worth to read it, which it doubtless would
have been. A visitor who knew something about math clued them in on it and
they spiked it. But even if the visitor hadn't done so and the thing had
been enacted, no harm would have been done, other than embarrassment to my
fair state's reputation -- which has evidently not been avoided in any
case.

Gentlemen, thank you for all the fascinating history. I've also
corresponded privately with Ron Hale-Evans, and seen some of his as yet
unpublished more general work on mutators. 

My own interest arose from a number of sources, starting with
dimensionality as a mutator candidate, and most immediately the playing of
a game of Fergus Duniho's Fusion Chess, and considering a game [Fluid
Chess] with fewer restrictions. 

Now I'm interested in the practical challenge of designing a set of
mutators that could be applied to a range of chess variants without
producing bizarre interactions. Practicality, at this point, is not so
much of an issue. [Just how you would handle 'grow', for example, in any
setting, is interesting.] Finding a good-sized, diverse group of mutators
that play well together is. 

Compatibility is important here. Mutators like Range and Jump can be
considered aspects of a more general Alter Move mutator, but that size is
too large/too general for practical use, as it allows any move alteration.
Its components can be useful [range and jump have no obvious interaction
problems], but care is needed, because some can amplify others and create
a 'runaway' condition that will destroy the game. 

In the spirit of trying to add a little something to each endeavor, I'll
suggest another movement mutator, Leadership. It requires that, for a
piece to move, that piece must start its move within a specified number of
squares of a designated leader piece. Now, what happens if this is done
hierarchically? You can designate the king and both knights as leaders,
say, and the distance as 4 squares, so that any piece within 4 squares of
any one of the three could move. But you can designate the king as the
main leader, and the knights as subordinates, and require the knights to
be within 4 squares of the king [or the other knight, optionally] to be
able to move and/or allow others to move. Call this Leader Chess. There: a
[new?] game, or just a mutator? ;-) Enjoy