Enter Your Reply

Keeping thread efficiency: if Gifford objects, this fitting one-comment
topic will be moved. In 2006 Gifford found the best link to Fischer here for context. Now in 2010 ChessBase promises follow-up article on Gary Kasparov's
view of F.R.C., so let's get ready. Asked about chess variants this week,
Kasparov admonishes not to throw out the baby with the bath water:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113. Kasparov adds
moderately never to go overboard at all. He says above 10 or 15 or 20 arrays will serve and have to last each one a year, whilst Winther
recommends more like 25:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24878, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24984.
Nietzsche says G. is dead, and God says N. is dead: whose elevation is whose degradation? Kasparov
is nigh to seeing in Fischer Random: (a) the wave (b) the crave (c) the
save (d) the rave (choose one) -- all conveniently overlooking Knave Robert
Fischer's wayward antics.  Who's quibbling? F.R.C. is #10 at the Next
Chess project in harmonic convergence. Chess Base still responsibly
attributes it to Fischer, unlike many Chess Variantists do correspondingly
when proliferation beckons re-works of others' old material.  Will it
last? Will not the Kasparov 10 become Kasparov Random Chess? In Random Chess,
never mind Alexandre in the 1820s; Fischer created the revival 15-20 years
prescient. To knowledge Fischer never weighed in on any other C.V. the ways Reshevsky, Capablanca, Lasker, Bird, and Philidor did.