A possible solution for the awkward castling rules in Chess960

Sorry , but I have no problem castling in 960. I look at the king and see the "e" column and know exactly where the king and the rook will end up in relation to the "e" column. The king does not need to be always on the "e" column to visualize the castling. I've been told I play the chessboard, not the pieces. Now I understand why. Some use the pieces to orientate them selves while others use the chessboard. Ever heard of the chess color complex? For the ones that play the pieces it's nothing, but for the others that play the chessboard, it's something to master. In short form, mobility is the chessboard, and activity is the pieces.

@Toscani There's no problem with understanding the rules of castling in 960. My issue isn't that it's hard to understand. My issue is that it seems arbitrary and contrived in some positions. Why should a king that starts on b1 move all the way over to g1 when it castles? Just to copy castling in the old chess?

It'd make more sense for the king to go to g1 if it started on e1. I'm not saying that the castling rules in 960 should necessarily be changed; I just think it's worth thinking about. To me, it feels like castling works the way it does in 960 just to copy the old chess without the same reasons the old chess had (king on e1).

@Prophiscient said in #12:

My issue is that it seems arbitrary and contrived in some positions.

It seems arbitrary and contrived to you.

@Prophiscient said in #7:

The point of castling is to move the king to one side of the board to attack on the other.

Maybe for you. For me (and many other people) the point of castling is to move the king behind some pawns and prepare rooks for getting connected.

@kalafiorczyk

It seems arbitrary and contrived to you.

It's contrived because it literally just copies the old chess without having the same reasons. Can you explain to me why the end position of castling in 960 copies the old chess even when the king and rooks are in totally different positions?

Maybe for you. For me (and many other people) the point of castling is to move the king behind some pawns and prepare rooks for getting connected.

If you were correct about the point of castling, then why do the end positions of castling in 960 copy the old chess exactly in every position?

I'm not saying that it's necessarily a terrible thing that the castling rules are contrived arbitrarily to copy the old chess. That might be fine to promote continuity between the old chess and the new chess. I just think there might've been a smoother way to do it.

@Prophiscient said in #14:

@kalafiorczyk No, not just to me. It's contrived because it literally just copies the old chess without having the same reasons.

I explained the reasons to you succinctly in one sentence above. It is up to you to comprehend it.

The additional reasons as explained by Fisher: the rules are intended to mess up chess players who memorize openings. It seems like Fisher succeeded exceedingly well in messing up your memorized chess rules, like this one:

@Prophiscient said in #7:

The point of castling is to move the king to one side of the board to attack on the other.

This is a classical example of memorization of openings: attack on the opposite side to the castle.

I say that Fisher had a lot of insight into the way of thinking of the chess memorizers like you, because it seems to make you really upset. That was the point.

@kalafiorczyk

I explained the reasons to you succinctly in one sentence above. It is up to you to comprehend it.

You're not tracking. I asked why the chess960 castling end positions copy the old chess exactly in every position. You did not answer this question.

The additional reasons as explained by Fisher: the rules are intended to mess up chess players who memorize openings. It seems like Fisher succeeded exceedingly well in messing up your memorized chess rules, like this one:

No, it was to prevent memorizing openings. But the point of castling is the same (protect the king, connect the rooks, move king to one side of the board) which is why castling results in the same position as the old chess.

The point of 960 is to be as much like chess as possible while preventing opening theory. This is why all the pieces have the same movements, rules for winning are the same, stalemate, castling positions, etc.

This is a classical example of memorization of openings: attack on the opposite side to the castle.

Do you even know what memorizing chess openings is? It's not knowing basic opening principles. That's just knowing chess lol. Memorizing openings is memorizing specific moves instead of thinking about each position on your own.

I say that Fisher had a lot of insight into the way of thinking of the chess memorizers like you, because it seems to make you really upset. That was the point.

Dude, c'mon. I'm not a "chess memorizer." I literally play 960 because I like to avoid opening theory and memorization. But it seems like you don't know what theory is in chess or what memorizing is. Knowing why to castle is not memorization.

And I'm not upset with the rules of chess960. I think it's vastly superior to the old chess because it avoids memorization and allows for many more unique positions. It's actually my favorite game ever. I just think the castling is a bit arbitrary because it copies the old chess without having the same reasons. But it can be okay to have some contrived rules in a game. I just offered a way to make castling less contrived.