Enter Your Reply

Mats, I agree that an 'easier' set of games would likely draw more
people, but I see no guarantee that these games would be more generally
'liked'. Much of what is played is basically expanded FIDE. In Game
Courier Tournament #3, roughly a third of the games were expanded FIDE
games [like Capablanca, Janus...] These games I only play in tournaments.
Individual games can be interesting, but in general, it's just FIDE writ
large. Nothing new.

As for unusual and difficult pieces, I offer [with apologies] the
wildebeest. This 2:1, 3:1, 3:2 leaper is what I would term a 'chaotic'
piece, like the sissa. The range of its second move is ridiculous. In that
sense, it's no different than the sissa. Or the rose, the circular knight.
Truthfully, I don't even like knightriders, despite Pocket Mutation being
one of my favorite variants. Pocket Mutation is not chaotic. It allows for
surprise, for twists and turns; it adds something to the tactics and
strategies of chess. 

Much of what is accepted today is the result of historical accident. A
different chess history would leave the same people having the same
arguments, but over different games. I see tournaments as a way to get
people to play games they otherwise wouldn't play.