[DanielM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a classic argument as to why there are more professional poker players then professional chess players.

On any given night, a sucker can beat a top poker player but that won’t happen in chess. That false sense of confidence keeps the poker suckers coming back, and the quality poker player's profits coming.

Does anyone have ideas of how to introduce randomness into chess so the suckers keep coming back? The trick is to do this without it being too gimmicky.

[/ QUOTE ]Many chess variants have been invented. There's Fischer random chess, there's transcendental chess (like Fischer but without the plane of symmetry), and some rather bizarre rules variants like atomic chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for filling us in. I checked the rules for these games at wikipedia.org. Transcendental chess would give one side an unfair advantage on an individual game, but that washes out over time.

A top player could make good $$ over time doing this, but the other poster has an excellent point. Top chess players want to win every game. Nice to know that there is a group of people out there who make poker players seem modest.