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

@ungewichtet said in #2:

The differences of the same positions we usually get over and over again are subtle, not random.

I think that the "random" tangling with diversity, is a bit too much.... if positions can be studies, so should starting positions.
However, i am not into competitive chess, so maybe there the random AND diverse, need to be kept.

I think the subtleties of the differences in standard, could receive some light from a diverse non random 960 practice, as standard is actually one of the 960s... so that standard can be understood from its "neighbors" (geometry, configuration, similarity , contrast). Easier to attribute causality, about position information consequence on game continuation from there, with same mobility rules (and termination ones), when the test input range is stretched.... I will not develop on that.. here. no need to run away... :) I am saying that the subtle signals can be amplified by trying different input parameters.... (sort of need more than one data point to figure out the complexity of a function we might be trying to assess). If straight linear, than 2 data points.. etc.... damn, i promised not to expand... ok i stop here.

Edit: just making sure i did not give the impression that i was limiting the funciton to 2 variables... "etc...." is about function shape complexity as much as input and output dimensionality... but still... same principle.. if you exagerate some differences in the input, and look at output, you get more perceptible information, which you can then use to look at the more subtle differences and separate the sublte from ambient noise.... at least trying might be necessary before logically concluding not true what i just suggested.

@Prophiscient said in #1:

Why do you want to play with the same starting position every game that has been analyzed to death? You usually get the same positions over and over again with the same old openings. Why not experience the full possibilities chess has to offer with Fischer Random Chess/Chess960?

cauz i literally kill every single one who falls into my favorite opening after giucio piano 4. c3 nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5
so i dont care if it is the same position cauz this game is about like more 2000 years old lol

also im not used to and suck at 960

Well the above might be the real answer.... as to why. It depends on what one likes about chess activity.. me i like moving things on a 2D board (even when 3d in physical world, the mobility is 2D). all that finite logic, and spatial experience analog, where will this go if i do this or that.. or something else.. find patterns from board information.. and induce hypotheses., use more games to test those.. etc...

yes, winning.. or losing... well they are just equiivalent feedback for my way of looking at chess.. staged competition, with 2 players, trying their best to figure how that board of moving things can go, many times..

so. that underlying question of why chess in first place, might be part of the full question.

@Prophiscient said in #1:

Why do you want to play with the same starting position every game that has been analyzed to death? You usually get the same positions over and over again with the same old openings. Why not experience the full possibilities chess has to offer with Fischer Random Chess/Chess960?
@Prophiscient said in #1:

Nobody has actually analyzed everything

@Prophiscient said in #8:

I think you’re romanticizing the names of the pieces a bit. SP518 is not the most balanced or imbalanced position. SP518 gives +0.3 for white. There are 960 positions that give the same advantage for white, some slightly more, and others slightly less.

So besides romanticizing the names of the pieces, what is so special about SP518?

It is not romanticising when I point out the geometrically about adequate placement of bishops, knights and rooks in the normal starting position. The central placement of the king is not romantic, it is symbolic because this game, it is all turning around the kings, They are the pieces that stand in for all pieces, irreverent of their name. The queen is the single peak of mobility and for that and symmetry of the rest gets the second central spot. The pawns shield. For a flash of romance, let me mention that pawns in German are called peasants. The peasants shield the towers, jumpers, runners, dames and kings. So as not to have rook takes rook on move one, which is also why pawns are not part of the mix-up process in Fischer Random. No romanticisms. But why 960 insists on castling? They should get rid of that Kitsch.

+0.3 for white throughout 960 positions, okay, but I am not talking about imbalance of positions, but about more or less practical ones. .

You claim awkwardness in 960 set-ups as assets. I'd say chess is all about fighting, just not about fighting randomness. You say it solves the opening theory dilemma, I'd say there is none, just play openings you don't know. The normal starting position gives us identity, and rather than explore it, we would run away from it and turn ourselves into shape-shifting super-adapters? That's no futuristic!

The occasional game of 960 is a great opportunity everybody should grab by its fuzzy hair. But principally, what we need to do is growing instead of fragmenting. Instead of becoming unburdened of opening theory computers of the new puzzler Chess 960, we might want to develop as old chess personae, changelings rising above theory.

@FiveofSwords said in #24:

Nobody has actually analyzed everything

I never said we've analyzed everything. But we have analyzed the openings of regular chess to death. At least to the point where opening theory is an issue that 960 could resolve.

@Prophiscient said in #26:

Just learn your openings.

why equate more initial configuration with "random". These are separable. I do not agree with the scrambling thing, if we are talking positional first chess versus move sequence alternance recipes first. Which seems to be your concerm.

You seem to value the emerging logical relationships from early positions information (placement of mobile units) in relation to deeper positions consequent from that early position and early decisions from it..

Adding more initial configurations, is not going to take out those associations, but augment the angles upon which to consider them. most likely emerging rules you might induce from unique standard initial condition might actually be lumping relationships together because they correlate in standard, while having few well experienced targeted 960 set ups, though not random, because finding patterns from a random walk in 960 might take some more than one life time to figure out.. Those patterns are not about tit for tat sequences of responses to opponent player last move, they are all about information on the board in relation to the decisions, however one came to such position. I say that in order for us to ask what was really the intent behind 960 type of variants.

I think positional experience is not the problem in standard, it is that people can play long sequences without caring about board information, as long as they have enough knowledge of the moves exact sequence needed to obtain certain outcomes, the most obscure in terms of position clues the better (i think that traps or SF long term escapees are of that natures, equally not interesting given my premise of chess fun).

So, i think the random aspect, is actually yes, killing some chess fun for me.... and also for anyone who likes to be guided by board information and clues.. whatever the other player just played or how deep in one game on is.

But nothing prevent the non-rated practice of 960... Actually, my point is that 960 is about standard.. I even wonder how many times in non-recorded ancestral chess history of reshaping the rules and pieces names and mobility characteristics, was different starting positions tried.. in order to be crystallized in Europe a few centuries ago... as we see it today.

I don't think all 960 are equally informative, or best tried first in that regard of understanding standard in a more causative fine grain point of view... or isolating why does one principle work there. how many underlying principles are tangled in standard, that could be untangled with different initial condition.. ok i bet i don't make much sense.. this is speculation of course.

I just think your focus on random is kind of missing something worthy about 960 experience set...

and maybe, that is because of the "random" dogma.. and maybe it is because of the tournament imperative or point of view about chess in general.. (that is a theory of course).

It is not romanticising when I point out the geometrically about adequate placement of bishops, knights and rooks in the normal starting position.

What do you mean by "geometric adequacy" of the starting position? What would be "geometrically inadequate" about having the bishops and rook positions swapped?

The central placement of the king is not romantic, it is symbolic because this game, it is all turning around the kings, They are the pieces that stand in for all pieces, irreverent of their name. The queen is the single peak of mobility and for that and symmetry of the rest gets the second central spot.

Again, this is romanticizing the pieces. They're just pieces. You have to use them a certain way to win the game and to avoid losing the game. We don't need to go on about their symbolic value and how that value is expressed in piece placement.

Do you find it "disrespectful" if a queen starts in a corner or a king starts on b1? To me, that creates interesting new possibilities. I'm not concerned about disrespecting a piece of wood or a digital representation of a piece of wood.

But why 960 insists on castling? They should get rid of that Kitsch.

Fischer Random allows for castling, because it wants to keep the same geometric possibilities and moves as the old chess but allow for more starting positions and possibilities.

+0.3 for white throughout 960 positions, okay, but I am not talking about imbalance of positions, but about more or less practical ones. .

Wouldn't a more practical position be better? Is your claim that SP518 is the most practical starting position possible?

And I think that less practical (or harder to navigate) positions allow for more creativity as we have to come up with unique solutions to harmonize our pieces. This is given to us on a silver platter in the old chess. We have to think harder and come up with solutions to harmonize our pieces in some positions. Just like life.

You claim awkwardness in 960 set-ups as assets.

It has pros and cons. A pro is the ability to have more unique positions and being given the opportunity to find creative ways to harmonize our pieces while preventing our opponents from being able to do so. A potential negative is that the starting position may be less aesthetically pleasing based on what we're used to. But I think the pros outweigh the cons.

I'd say chess is all about fighting, just not about fighting randomness.

Some level of randomness is always present. Whether or not you prepared for a variation your opponent plays is random. There's the meta randomness of why SP518 is the most popular starting position. But I think we ought to allow for the full geometric beauty of chess to be expressed in all of the possibilities that Fischer Random gives us instead of being trapped forever in the same starting position.

From a gameplay perspective, there's no reason SP518 should be more preferred than the other 959 possible starting positions. It's just tradition and fear of the unfamiliar.

You say it solves the opening theory dilemma, I'd say there is none, just play openings you don't know.

This is the opening theory dilemma! If you play an unsound opening, you disadvantage yourself, and your opponent can punish you. They may know the opening, or you might give yourself a terrible position. This would only be a factor if your opponent isn't strong enough to punish you. And to play a new opening competently, you have to study the common lines. Then chess becomes more about memorization and work than skill and fun.

This is the argument for Fischer Random Chess.

The normal starting position gives us identity, and rather than explore it, we would run away from it and turn ourselves into shape-shifting super-adapters? That's no futuristic!

We'd be abandoning pointless tradition to embrace the future. Rule changes in chess are nothing new. Castling was an innovation. En passant was an innovation. Pawn being able to move two squares on the first move was an innovation. The pieces changing their movement capabilities was an innovation. So too is Fischer Random. Not to mention SP518 will still exist. It just won't be our only possible starting position.

The occasional game of 960 is a great opportunity everybody should grab by its fuzzy hair. But principally, what we need to do is growing instead of fragmenting. Instead of becoming unburdened of opening theory computers of the new puzzler Chess 960, we might want to develop as old chess personae, changelings rising above theory.

I agree with you that fragmenting isn't optimal. SP518 should be absorbed into chess960 ;)

lines versus position is not same axis as standard versus 960 (with unfortunate "random" appendage).