Jeremy Good wrote on Sat, Jun 6, 2009 02:21 PM UTC:
Chess variant design dogma and counterexamples: There are certain
superficial criteria some variant inventors employ such as 'overpowered'
(exception: Tripunch)- 'unprotected pawns in the opening' (exception:
Falcon Chess) 'leapers should follow a ratio to board size' (exception:
Sky).
In each case, I'm only naming one of numerous fine exceptions to
such rules. I see such rules (commonly held myths really - can you think of
more of them?) more as challenges to explore the exceptions, and I think
that's somehow more in keeping with the spirit of the conversation this
website facilitates, a conversation about the nature of chess and its
evolution.
I have a challenge for anyone reading this message and skeptical about what I say: Play with me at least two games of any of the above (I can provide you with a list of other exceptions too) that you think are problematic and see if you still feel that your view is objective and real or based simply on a surmise or personal, subjective aesthetic. Please be honest about it and make sure you've actually looked down the other side of the mountain before you decide whether its scaleable.
Another one that gets some traction somehow is the idea that games are only worth playing if pieces involve simple capture by replacement and don't affect powers of other pieces. I don't understand that one even as a subjective aesthetic.
In each case, I'm only naming one of numerous fine exceptions to such rules. I see such rules (commonly held myths really - can you think of more of them?) more as challenges to explore the exceptions, and I think that's somehow more in keeping with the spirit of the conversation this website facilitates, a conversation about the nature of chess and its evolution.
I have a challenge for anyone reading this message and skeptical about what I say: Play with me at least two games of any of the above (I can provide you with a list of other exceptions too) that you think are problematic and see if you still feel that your view is objective and real or based simply on a surmise or personal, subjective aesthetic. Please be honest about it and make sure you've actually looked down the other side of the mountain before you decide whether its scaleable.
Another one that gets some traction somehow is the idea that games are only worth playing if pieces involve simple capture by replacement and don't affect powers of other pieces. I don't understand that one even as a subjective aesthetic.