This large and splendid article by chess hyperbrain Garry Kasparov (pictured), in which he talks about the evolution of computer chess, seems deeply relevant to all of computerised gaming.
Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors.
It's worth reading, anyway.
Dave Tosser says: The problem with chess is that it isn't owned by a corporation. Because it's old, and therefore rubbish, it receives none of the ancillary bonuses of feature creep or online-ification that modern games benefit from. What the chess market needs is a new chess, developed and marketed by a successful large company to deliver the additional features chess needs (co-op, achievements, micro-payment DLC).