Well, I disagree. The idea of an infinite dimension on the board is interesting in my opinion. Ridiculous means deserving mockery or being absurd. It is none of them. I'm not attached on the way the author defines the infinity which is possibly arguable. I prefer imagining the board having an infinite even number of rows like if it had a sort of black-hole-river in the middle. The game we have here is not good as only Rooks and Queens can cross it, but I guess some other game could be imagined on this conceptual board and I then this board has nothing ridiculous.
A more interesting debate would be to discuss of how many definite rows would be necessary to approach the same topological nature than an infinite number of rows. I don't know if I'm clear. I mean, maybe a board of 20 or 30 rows is enough. It probably depends on the number of columns, probably on the number of pieces able to cross the "infinity" also. I wonder.
Well, I disagree. The idea of an infinite dimension on the board is interesting in my opinion. Ridiculous means deserving mockery or being absurd. It is none of them. I'm not attached on the way the author defines the infinity which is possibly arguable. I prefer imagining the board having an infinite even number of rows like if it had a sort of black-hole-river in the middle. The game we have here is not good as only Rooks and Queens can cross it, but I guess some other game could be imagined on this conceptual board and I then this board has nothing ridiculous.
A more interesting debate would be to discuss of how many definite rows would be necessary to approach the same topological nature than an infinite number of rows. I don't know if I'm clear. I mean, maybe a board of 20 or 30 rows is enough. It probably depends on the number of columns, probably on the number of pieces able to cross the "infinity" also. I wonder.