[Retros] Ch5: Place of the Retro Logics

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Sat Jun 21 03:41:55 EDT 2014

I will say this...

I wish Problem Chess had the same focus for creating a basic orthodoxy (a
clear set of fundamental rules, which govern all types of variants, unless
expressly altered).
Hmm, if only WFCC could find a way to profit by peddling a fairy codex to
Maybe WFCC should put a dragon on the cover...

Regardless, you would expect that even the MtG pushers would know better
than to litter their own cards with a profoundly absurd timestamp
It should be self-evident that the rules governing an object (whether a
pokemon card, a aMtG card, or even a variant chess game) should not be
hidden in a timestamp.

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>

> ps: in problem chess, we need not buy our pieces.
> Good luck selling Hasbro on the potential revenues in the MtG Problem
> market.
> You should read this:
> http://www.superdataresearch.com/content/uploads/2009/08/TCG2010.pdf
> The first thing you should note (if you don't already know): revenue was
> always the primary motivation for MtG.
> The second thing you should note:  the folks who have been playing MtG
> enthusiasts for suckers are actively seeking some means to draw revenue
> from solitary enthusiasts.
> Read that last statement carefully...
> The primary limitation on sales projections:  the suckers who purchase MtG
> can not find anyone to engage in active play.
> As a result, they discontinue the endless purchase of what are essentially
> pokemon cards.
> You want to know the only reason why MtG can not compete with chess
> problems?  Because Habro has found no way to make money selling takebacks!
> Do not make the mistake of comparing problem chess with such an absurd
> commercial endeavor, -- it only erodes your own credibility to profess to
> have been taken by their fantasy marketing pitch.
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Andrew,
>> Magic (the Gathering) is, like FIDE chess, a game.
>> If you want to compare the success of MtG, compare it with another game.
>> Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPiJHGZkJ0
>> By comparison, MtG doesn't even have a decent parody.
>> If you want to draw comparisons with problem chess, you must draw
>> references to the problem form of MtG (which, I presume, you have yet to
>> invent).  Good luck with that (I think you'll find that MtG doesn't much
>> care for problems, as they do not represent an especially purchase-driven
>> enterprise).
>> I do sympathize with your enthusiasm for MtG.
>> I will even concede that MtG may be wrongly perceived by popular culture
>> (in all the same ways that Fairy Chess can be).
>> But, the analogies you make, between MtG and Chess (or Problem Chess)
>> are, well, a backfire of careless wizardry.
>> As I understand it, the ratio of rules to cards, in MtG, is only
>> compensated by a profound excess of cards.
>> Its selling point is not even the game itself, it is in fact a
>> misadventure of a game, which must masquerade as a dungeons and dragons
>> fantasy, for the purpose of sales.
>> You'll not find anybody seriously advocating for the benefits of teaching
>> MtG in our schools.
>> But, you'll find plenty of studies which suggest that there are benefits
>> to chess problems.
>> The best anyone can say about MtG:  children could be doing worse
>> things...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140621/aa9d644f/attachment.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list