Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Sep 22, 2008 10:58 PM UTC:
In regards to this conversation, I would like people to consider the game
Rithmomachy, for example. This game was what was played in Europe before
Chess came in. Chess comes in and replaces it and it drops off. You can
see it here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/17118
My take regarding chess is this: Unless you want to watch what happened
with Rithmomachy to chess, in other words, the community abandons the game
and goes plays other things, things should be mindful as to what should be
done with the game to keep the community in place before they fracture.
Fracturing is the norm, but doesn't need to be so.
In regards to this, I would rather give thought to how we can have an
environment for chess to continually evolve, rather than one that leads to
the community dying off. I know in conversations I have had with some,
they would like to say to games like chess or checkers: 'Your game is now
broken! Abandon it, and play something better, like games in the Gipf
series that will never break!' Of course, my view of abstract strategy
games is, once a codified set of rules for a game with no luck, 2 players,
and perfect information is written, it gets an expiration date stamped on
it. It is on its way to being solved. Because of this the thought of
what the next version of chess or any other abstract strategy game is,
does need to come into place. Well, unless one wants to throw in
imperfect information or luck.
By the way, my experience with Seirawan Chess is more of a typical example than some new form of fragmenting. Fragmenting is more of the norm, that creates deadends historically.
Also, I am curious about the end of discussions of humans against AI. Is it that Deep Blue did it, and now the community would rather pursue other activities to find meaning in their game? Or are they just bored? Is it the facing the possible inevitable end of their game as it is and they are just waiting? What is your take on this?
In the case of myself, my interest in the future of chess as AIs beating humans as a lower priority in others. I am more interested in chess (and other games) to both continue to delight people with new innovations and novelty, and also provide a place for people's adaptive cognitive abilities to be measured. In the current age, the ability to adapt to new mental challenges is what is high on the list. And, in his, I believe that the games that are played benefit if they map to this. Again, I get back to Heraclitian-Calvinball, but so be it. I believe in a H-C environment is where one is able to find higher levels of universal strategy that have more universal application.
