Why are you guys choosing to play chess instead of Fischer Random Chess/Chess960?

Like players who only want to start thinking after playing 10-15 moves

I think you're overestimating our abilities just a bit.

@KingRod said in #9:

Just played my first 960 game, and it was a ton of fun. Towards the middle game, it transmutated towards a familiar set-up.

That’s great! I want chess960 to become more popular, because I think it’s the future of chess.

And yeah, as pieces start leaving the board, 960 games end up just like regular chess. It tends to be the openings and middle games that differ from regular chess.

@ProgrammerAngrim said in #7:

They play it because it is comfortable and familiar, gradually leading into unfamiliar territory instead of a sudden shock of starting in a new position.
Maybe it could be introduced some type of chess 960, when the initial position
is not determined randomly, but it is chosen by both players. Then we could
have our favourite initial position analysed earlier.

@Frogster64 said in #11:

I think you're overestimating our abilities just a bit.

I checked how much theory of the main line of the caro kann. I knew about 14-15 moves.

And I realized that it’s not only avoiding theory that 960 improves from regular chess. 960 also avoids replaying the same old positions that are common in chess. You get more exciting positions in the middle game as well as avoiding theory in the opening.

@Marcin2 said in #13:

Maybe it could be introduced some type of chess 960, when the initial position
is not determined randomly, but it is chosen by both players. Then we could
have our favourite initial position analysed earlier.

I’ve thought about this, but there are a few issues with this idea.

1. Players may just choose whatever starting position they’re familiar with.

2. Players may end up with very imbalanced starting positions. This may cause better players to lose in virtue of the starting position as opposed to superior play.

It could be argued that this is part of the game, but I think it’s better if your decisions in the game determines the winner as opposed to choosing a bad starting position.

3. Theory would develop for the best starting position, and it would just create new theory which would defeat the purpose.

I think most of us are trying to improve at chess which is already super difficult. Adding another level of complexity to it seems very daunting. Though I do hope it becomes more popular.

Out of interest, are you asking people why they prefer standard chess over 960 because you're actually interested in discussing what people enjoy and why, or just because you want to tell them that they're wrong and they should play 960 instead?

@RamblinDave said in #17:

Out of interest, are you asking people why they prefer standard chess over 960 because you're actually interested in discussing what people enjoy and why, or just because you want to tell them that they're wrong and they should play 960 instead?

Both. I wanna know people’s reasons, and I also wanna see if there are any good reasons.

There are some benefits to the old chess, such as ease of explaining a position verbally (e4, e5, etc), starting position aesthetics, etc.

But I don’t think any of them are worth opening theory and the banality of the positions people typically get.

@greysensei said in #16:

I think most of us are trying to improve at chess which is already super difficult. Adding another level of complexity to it seems very daunting. Though I do hope it becomes more popular.

Why would you rather improve at chess instead of improving at chess960?

@Prophiscient said in #14:

I checked how much theory of the main line of the caro kann. I knew about 14-15 moves.

I know plenty of lines that are 15 moves deep. My opponents probably do too. But we apparently rarely know the same lines because we usually diverge from theory well before that.

But I'm not disputing your suggestion that chess960 is more exciting.