Enter Your Reply

Throughout history there have been occasions where persons have purged
society's database. Libraries burned, authors executed, inventions
destroyed. All for the reason of simplifying their existence and
controlling the common man.

Did this improve mankind's state? Or did this actually cripple mankind's
intellectual evolution? The latter was most likely the case.

Chess has evolved from simplicity to it current complexity. The thinking
person would realize that it will continue to evolve in complexity rather
than slide back into simplicity. If only to continue to challenge the
mind.

Whereas, before the last of half of the twentieth century, most people had little contact with others outside their direct environment. Their exposure to ideas outside that environment was rare or often slow to arrive. Now, with the Net, all those developing concepts which might have gone un-noticed can be presented to an enormous audience. To evaluate and/or play.

No one should be forced to appreciate any particular form of game. This
would be self-defeating of the concept of play. Which is a part of the very nature of humans.

Likewise, those who desire to either promote a particular form of play or
do not appreciate other forms should respect their fellow players. If they desire to apply particular parameters to the development of their
particular games, they are well within their rights. But to demand such
compliance from others is only a high state of hubris.

Consider a mind which has existed within a 'box', surrounding by what it
knows within this domain. If it is allowed to peek outside and view the
infinity of chaotic potential, it may recoil in fear rather than amazement(or amusement). Unable to accept or comprehend. Such a mind should not be harassed to accept such a challenge. Merely pitied.