Herlock Sholmes:
I wonder, do you play backgammon (I don't very often) ... but here is a game which may rival chess in its popularity and its list of variants even though I think it has far less opportunities to be morphed. But still the traditional game prevails. Go is the same.

These days I play very little traditional chess as I do not have time to read as widely as some and to play at the higher level you need to or be quite gifted (which I am also am not). I, probably like you, enjoy playing variants where there is no great history or written material on the benefits of e2-e4. I enjoy playing in an even challenge and find this is the province of variants for me.

I believe the reason why traditional chess, backgammon, go and the like survive with very few rule changes is that they have already been proofed by the test of time. I do not know of one variant that takes less away from the traditional game than it adds. Maybe you would like to analyse a few examples to try to prove me wrong.

In conclusion, I agree there is an element of truth to what you say about the "boring" nature of traditional chess and I am sure this is more prevalent at the higher levels ... championships played where the majority of games, despite the clever play, end in draws in no great inspiration ... but when you look at the subtleties they are often quite astounding and beautiful ... way beyond my capabilities.. I am not convinced that a plethora of variants would lead to such revelations.