Should chess variants that must always end in a decisive result (for a given game played of them) be regarded with at the least some dislike by purists?
That is, since in such a kind of chess variant (e.g. this might even include Losing Chess [as that CV was proven to be a win for White, some years ago, says its CVP Rules Page, if I recall correctly], or more definitely Arimaa [since that game's rules avoid any possibility of a draw {or so I recall it was claimed on another website somewhere - I forget if both sides can just maneuver mindlessly forever, if there is [optionally] no e.g. 50 move rule}]), one side or another must inevitably win in a [even nearly{?}-]perfectly played game, even in any otherwise error free game played by each of the opponents involved?
Should chess variants that must always end in a decisive result (for a given game played of them) be regarded with at the least some dislike by purists?
That is, since in such a kind of chess variant (e.g. this might even include Losing Chess [as that CV was proven to be a win for White, some years ago, says its CVP Rules Page, if I recall correctly], or more definitely Arimaa [since that game's rules avoid any possibility of a draw {or so I recall it was claimed on another website somewhere - I forget if both sides can just maneuver mindlessly forever, if there is [optionally] no e.g. 50 move rule}]), one side or another must inevitably win in a [even nearly{?}-]perfectly played game, even in any otherwise error free game played by each of the opponents involved?