Hi George

The game of (19x19) Go is more intuitive than chess, which concentrates more on calculation, and is played on a much smaller (8x8) board. Go had been thought to be possibly more computer-resistant than chess until the latest defeat for the human side. A forlorn hope may be that neural net
programming techniques don't work as well for games (e.g. most chess variants!?) which are based more on calculation, though for the sake of accepting the challenge, and in a case of overkill, programmers are now aiming to beat top human chess players with self-teaching (neural net) techniques as well.

The 8x8 game of Arimaa (barely a chess variant IMHO) suffered a similar
fate as Go last year, as far as humanity is concerned, for that is when a
program (not using neural net technichiques afaik) finally beat top Arimaa players in the annual computer vs. top humans contest. Arimaa was thought to be promising for humanity for a different reason, in that there is a high branching factor at each ply (17000+ legal moves on average available), which might put a dampening effect on Greg's suggestion earlier in this thread concerning Marseilles (i.e. 2 move) Chess, since, as he noted, it has a branching factor of about 900 legal moves per ply.

Unless there can be a chess variant that is surprising computer-resistant,
and with the potential to be popular enough to be widely played, my flights
of fancy are turning more and more to the outside chance that in our
lifetimes there may be a global divine intervention that in effect pushes a
reset button (hopefully gently), e.g. on some of the worst aspects and/or
misuses of modern technology (including any forms of cheating).

[edit: much earlier in this thread you wrote:

"Kevin Pacey began recent topic here December 2015 with the term "next chess." And weeks later adds interesting questioning whether any CV diverges much from OrthoChess, probably meaning from programming standpoint. "Next Chess" originates with Joe Joyce wording and then by series of threads in abeyance since 2014 we made a list of over twenty contenders: NextChess9."

While hoping this thread won't wander too far off topic, I'll note that:

1) I happened to notice the term "next chess" used on a random message board some years ago (I think), where a poster whose name escapes me was noting that he thought many people were trying to invent a board game of skill that would replace chess in terms of dominant use worldwide, with some such people taking their game to trade shows, getting into quarrels involving threats of lawsuits...;

2) It has seemed to me that many of the more viable/popular chess variants that I've seen (thus far, in my early exploration of chess variants) may not differ from standard chess all that much, in that they might allow a skilled chess player to soon be equally skilled in playing them too. However trying to define what makes any one chess variant more like chess than another chess variant is would seem hardly possible. Yet, sometimes the case can be clear, at least to me. Circular chess, or Capablance Chess, for example, seem a lot more chesslike than Rococo, and a chess master may well need longer to master the latter than either of the former variants. Also, some variants use rules governing at least some of the pieces which are radically different than is the case for chess or other chess variants, e.g. Fusion Chess, or variants that use an Anti-King. Again, a chess master might often get the hang of how to play with an Archbishop or Chancellor (in Capablanca Chess) sooner, I would guess. I haven't yet touched variants which have slightly bizarre objectives, such as Losing Chess, for example.]