Others and I came across this bit of news in a competitive SSBM Facebook group and our chatter has since developed into an interesting discussion about game theory, innovation, and balance. So, what are all your guys' thoughts? Does this game look promising? Does Sirlin accurately define the elements of top-level chess? How do you feel about the Asymmetric approach to game development? Is this really the future of chess, and most of all, would you play it?
As I feel obligated to share my opinion as well, I've quoted some of my Facebook comments below.
"Chess isn't bad, and Chess 2 isn't a declaration of inferiority. The man simply loves what he loves and made a version of chess that complimented that. If memorization and book-to-play is a person's style (which is something that dominates at the grandmaster level, at least from what I've seen), all the power to them for loving chess."
"... I do not agree with how Chess 2 theoretically fixes chess -- at all. Either used as a dynamic banner for the article, or the creator's unfortunate misunderstanding of the scope of his idea, Sirlin is merely appealing to his personal view of what makes a game satisfying. Tbh, I share his interest in regards to Chess 2's game elements, without any need to compare the game to Chess 1, as I find no discernible reason to degrade or eliminate something that isn't a direct threat to humanity."
"From a semantic viewpoint, outside of abiding by a game's rules, the player is free to choose how to express themselves in any way they so desire."