[Contractor69]

I think the point he's trying to make is that we're all so conditioned to accept institutions without question ("we do it that way because we've ALWAYS done it that way"). This is beaten into us (and creativity beaten OUT OF us) as children, especially through the public schools. Clearly it's not irreverent to innovate, but I can imagine the shock/horror of the mainstream at the "reinvention" of chess.

[balakk]

While the point is valid, certain institutions do require some reverence and respect. Chess is certainly such a game. I'm not saying one has to be a Fischer to invent a new chess format; but unless the person has seriously understood/appreciated the complexities of chess, I'll have trouble taking them seriously.

Irreverence is good if it comes from deep understanding and knowledge or genius - otherwise it just comes off as arrogance.

[TillE]

That's only true if you're trying to invent something better, Chess 2.0. If you're just trying to create something different and fun with similar rules, it's not really necessary to deeply understand the strategic balance of chess.

[pbhjpbhj]

Exactly. She appeared to make something more complex (though I didn't look at the rules). But perhaps it's something that allows here to make stories about it better, or something that uses her favourite toys, or something that is more fun for some other reason.

Now, if she'd said - that game is no good, it's not complex enough, it's not challenging enough or somesuch (and wasn't a grandmaster) then I think she would perhaps have been irreverent, though more likely ignorant.