Enter Your Reply

From your recent post in this thread:
'Joe Joyce's [style] includes contempt for historicity. He says that
whether form or piece were once employed even decades ago is irrelevant to
right of immediate self-expression in still one more personal set of rules
without standards.' 

If you wish to call it contempt, you may. I will say a lot of it is lack
of knowledge. Even with 4 years of being online/aware of CVs, I still have
a lot of history to learn. And I strongly disagree about my purported lack
standards; but I will address that later. Here, I wish to acknowledge and
affirm that, while the attitude you ascribe me is quite wrong, the
underlying premise - that a designer has/should have free access to
anything and everything - I believe in and will support. ;-) 

Designing things over and over - the history of science is replete with
examples: Darwin and Wallace, Newton and Leibnitz. And the history of the
world is far the richer for it. The Impressionists are a school, not a
single painter; the Red Cross/Red Crescent is not just Florence
Nightingale. Chess is not only found on 8x8 to 10x10 boards. It is not
contempt to acknowledge that two heads are better than one, and a
different viewpoint may give a new insight. Enough of the philosophy. Lets
talk games.