Enter Your Reply

The motif behind the preoccupation with chess variants. It's
obvious that chess has become very analytical, and there is today
less 'alchemy' left in chess. When chess began in India, it was
commonly played with dice. The mysterious aspect of chess as a
universe of variants is continually narrowing down into
well-trodden paths, and chess has today become a resource of the
overruling ego. I think this is what lies behind attempts as
Seirawan Chess, etc., which aim at reintroducing chance and
wizardry into a game which is today very much about technique and
preparedness, which does not allow much room for the unexpected.
There is nothing essentially wrong in a scientific and
rationalistic view of chess, it's only that it might develop into
a form of compulsion neurosis, where always the rationally best
move must be done, with the aid of a computer.

To allow chess to be enhanced, while keeping the option to play
standard chess, would satisfy the part of ourselves that is not
only interested in ego-power, tournament victories and rating
lists. So I think that evolutions in chess reflect developments
in the collective psyche. When the modern rules emerged in the
beginning of the 16th century, this answered to changes in
collective consciousness. The renaissance had brought with it
notions of objective criteria, and the game was seen as an object
of study in itself. Before, it was solely a game of parlor and
wholly integrated in the social context, and that's why it was so
popular among women in medieval times.

Perhaps a better term than computerization is the term
rationalization. I think it's a sign of the times that people are
feeling that an out-and-out rationalization of every aspect of
life, including chess, is too much to bear. The urge to
'irrationalize' chess, by tampering with the rules, can perhaps
be seen as a reaction against an overruling ego with its
rationalistic urge to control, and the accompanying vain search
after recognition and self-gratification. To give the lie to
rationalism, one would want a 'wizard piece' to suddenly turn 
up on the board, as a chance event, to reintroduce a portion 
of 'game alchemy' into chess.

It is possible that an evolutionary turn, what occurred in the
16th century, is again taking place. It is necessary to meet the
demands of a collective consciousness which cannot bear anymore
of rationalistic reductionism. This is necessary if chess is to
remain popular, and I think it might be inevitable to introduce
an alternative. Congenially, FIDE has decided that Chess960 be
included in the general chess rules, coming into force at 1. July
2009. It is a pleasing development, but there might be better
alternatives than Chess960. This topic must be discussed among
chessplayers. 
/Mats