by StinkyHarry
I just wondered about whether it was useful teaching moves/piece selection and recognition. I know it can't possibly have the tactical depth of the evolved game, but I wondered whether, as a DIFFERENT game, it had any virtues at all. As Rob says, it didn't make much of an impression - but is that partly because it was seen as an inferior (disapproved of) 'version' rather than as a distinct game? Or does it just fail to satisfy, full stop? Just thinking aloud!And this is me:
I also like games which are NOT just dumb luck: chess, for example. A beautiful, perfect artifact. If Earth were to be destroyed tomorrow and only one thing could be left behind floating in space to mark what we once were, it would be a chess set (and rules), I think: we were game-players, we were artisans,we had a developed aesthetic beyond mere functional efficiency, we were war-like, we were competitive, we were social, we were clever.....You get the idea. Games MATTER, as cultural manifestations beyond the trivial.