wouldn't fisher random be better

If you want a large board, you could play taikyoku shogi (actually, good luck finding someone to play against): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taikyoku_shogi

Statements like this are odd to me.  In standard chess there is a lot of theory in openings and endgames and huge databases of examples and books on strategy to help a person navigate the middle portions.  It's as if people who make statements like the highlighted quote above are calling the work people put into learning and practicing this knowledge illegitimate.

You want to learn and explore a new chess-like game?  Great.  But you're still learning and exploring... this is no different from what some chess players have been doing for decades, working hard to expand and refine their skill.

a) Today equipped with opening books, endgame tablebases and engines one can play a perfect game independent of their skills.

b) This would be impossible with bigger boards.

If a) is a problem than b) is a solution.

I can only speak to those who think that a) is a problem.

a) is unsound, regardless of its status as a problem. please revise

on a larger board like you speak of, queens rooks and bishops would have much more scope, making the knights relatively weak. that's the  big problem  i see.

also, central control in the opening would be a thing of the past unless the pawns could move 5 squares in the opening... it's an interesting idea but i think standard chess makes more sense. and how would the back rank pieces be arranged?

Ok. Instead of perfect let's say 'practically perfect' or 'perfect as compared to human play'.

No

You are making a good point. Actually at FICGS this is compensated by having relatively more knights and the king has extra cavalry defending it.

Such issues can be adressed if someone belives that there is a problem to be adressed at all.

I feel exactly like you. Just played Go and I don't feel it's the ideal game for me. the fact that it has only one type of piece contributes a lot for that. One of the reasons I'm in favor of big chess is adding more types of pieces (like Omega Chess).

The greatest sign that chess' skill limit is too low is the incredible number of draws at top play.

Also, "raising it (the skill limit) makes the winner random"? Seriously? Please reflect for one or two minutes on what you've just said.

Bleh, as I said the thought is surely formulated better somewhere else.  Give me some wiggle room  here.  I didn't quite mean the skill ceiling itself.

I'm talking about the idea that just adding more depth doesn't necessarily increase the amount of skill needed to improve results.  For example in an overly complex game I may improve my results with tricks or even just luck and not with understanding because my opponent is also struggling to play competently.  In an easily navigated and easily understood game I'm more likely to be required to out think my opponent to improve my results.  A game easily understood and easily played counterintuitively adds practical depth and makes for a more satisfying game.

I'm not arguing the superiority of chess to any other game here.  Just that this is an interesting concept which, again, is probably expressed succinctly somewhere else like in some game design book or something like this.

So if the problem is the centuries of theory building up and randomness is not how you want to solve it, why not expand on chess?  Keeping it simple and uniform but adding some refreshing new elements to it.

The two best attempts I've seen at this are Grand chess and Omega chess. I prefer Omega since the new pieces add something unique and aren't just the pre-existing pieces combined.  But I think any talk of replacing chess is silly.  Take away the history behind chess and you have one of thousands of abstract strategy games.  If you want to try a new game without so much theory behind it try Arimaa.  There are plenty of freshly invented games that might be to your liking.

Seirawan Chess is quite challenging and alluring to real chess players. Loser's chess (when the king remains a king, and check is check) holds some interest. Bughouse is loud, obnoxious, causes eyes to swell, and is fun.

Chess 960 can be interesting or not depending on how the random set-up comes out. 

The original chess game with the important changes wrought 1492-1851 is best.

This means that there were changes. And not only minor changes but Important ones.

Why? Because chess needed to be tailored to the needs of a new era, it needed to be made faster.

This did not ruin or deny 'shatranj' in any way. Just improved on it.

Playing on a bigger board would not ruin or deny chess just tailor it to the needs created by the new age of databases and engines.

My opinion is that you have to remain as conservative as possible but solve the problem. The improved game must have the 'feel' of chess. This is important.

What?

What?!

in ancient chess the Vazír (predecessor of the Queen) could make only one step in every direction (was the weakest piece). Castling was not possible. Pawns could advance only one square at a time even at their first move. Elephants (predecessors to Bishops) could only jump two squares along diagonals, no less, no more. This made the game very slow.

There is no problem.  Hordes of amateur players with no database study or useful opening memorization are waiting to play you.  You don't like it it's a personal problem, not a problem with chess.

As for top level play, Carlsen seems to do fine without computers.  Funnily enough Naka with his computer intensive training really struggles against Carlsen.

They said chess was played out and dead in the early 1900s.  Then people explored new openings and ideas.  Fischer said it was dead (along with the king's gambit) in the mid 1900s because he was a paranoid nutcake who was terrified of losing.

Now watcha and friends say it's dead toady... and they don't even play at a level where databases matter.  They and their opponents don't even make use of the books available.  Meanwhile the pros are doing fine.

Oh, I see what you mean by faster.  What's nice is it added a lot of tactics when before there was only slow strategic play.  The modern game is a (IMO) fantastic mix of strategy and tactics which (IMO) no other game can boast.

Meeting the needs of the era comment is still a mystery though.

"Extinction Chess" is a variant I enjoy. You win when all of any single type of opposing piece is gone. Pawn promotion includes kings. There is no check or checkmate because the king is merely a piece. The game is highly tactical (with 6 different ways to win or lose) and there's no "book" to speak of.