Enter Your Reply

I do not consider 8x8 OrthoChess to be ''Chess'' anymore. Its
replacements are already within CVPage.  Sorting material, organizing, and
hierarchizing will uncover the better, and best, forms already existing to
replace small 8x8. The point, as variantists, is to be advocates: if
certain Chesses are better, then put them forth for play and replacement.
I am optimisitic about directions Rich Hutnik's IAGO proposes, and Joe
Joyce increasingly seems to concur. OrthoChess' surviving as premier form
1496 to 1996, five hundred years, falls short of  Shatranj's 900 years  
600-1500 A.D. That very intermediate form, first called ''regina
rabiosa,'' now known as FIDE orthodox, is being overtaken from year to
year. CVPage is not always too concerned about observing the Death of
Chess right before our eyes, over the last decade, because
variant-prolificists dwell on their ''artwork'' not much intended for
play. Now Charles Daniels' representing himself as objective is laughable, since
he is the strongest ''Orthodoxist'' in all CVPage's comment-history; his are welcome comments because we never had so traditional (and
admittedly still majority) perspective before. Draws are far lesser issue
to the general decline itself of Chess. Draw-rules are in over 95% of CVs, and the next logic has followed precisely what Muller says of keeping Draws at 10% to 33%. Nothing new there in prior generations of CVPage regulars, with conversations going back to year 2000, as participants change. There is wide agreement about acceptable Draw ranges.  Anand-Kramnik starts next week,  so  let's measure the
excitement and interest here.