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

@Sarg0n said in #56:

I mean the purpose of chess960 is tidying up the messy postion and then play regular chess?

Most 960 games I’ve seen have very different openings and middle games than regular chess. So this theory doesn’t seem to pan out. Did you watch the Fischer Random World Championship? How many of those games were played to achieve regular chess-like positions? Not many from what I saw. There are more ways to harmonize your pieces than just trying to achieve boring, typical, chess positions.

@Idvan said in #58:

So look many games indeed.

And I think some people just want to skip this process and start playing regular chess immediatly!

Most 960 positions don’t end up like regular chess in the middle game. And if you waste your time trying to set up positions that are exactly the same as regular chess, you’ll probably get checkmated.

@ThunderClap said in #54:

Right @Prophiscient You said I was Right which I am 100 percent based on what I said & what Chess IS ... THE GREATEST GAME EVER INVENTED Thank You so much for the acknowledgement' ... Chess is what it is & People CHOOSE to play Chess & Not Chess 960 as Chess is the greatest game ever invented & case closed caso cerradp ! @Prophiscient but some may play the variant chess960 if they would like to

Chess is not the best game ever. Chess960 is better. Less people play 960 just cuz it’s less popular. Less people know about it cuz it’s relatively newer. But it’s growing and will likely overtake chess in the next 100 years. Chess only exists because people don’t know about 960, people are afraid of playing a better game they might not be as good at and can’t study for, and regular chess is a cash cow for now.

@Sarg0n said in #55:

1-2% of all games are Fischer random. The tail 960 is trying to wag the dog?

Chess has a 2000 year head start in terms of notoriety. 960 has existed less than 50 years. And funnily enough, it’ll probably overtake chess in the next 100 to 200 years.

Chess is only more popular cuz less people know about 960. Eventually, 960 will take over. Chess is being held up by people who are afraid of losing to lower rated players cuz they’ve wasted all their time on theory instead of developing real skill. And the money involved in regular chess.

@Idvan said in #59:

Where do you know this? Have you analyzed them all?

No, engines have.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1JVT6_ROOlCTtMmazzBe0lhcGv54rB6JCq67QOhaRp6U/htmlview#gid=0

Well @Prophiscient since you asked I suppose it's because of several reasons.

Firstly I don't like Bobby Fischer and resent that he was the inventor.

And I have this problem with 960 because it should be called 959 because one of the positions is the standard opening configuration.

Also I've spent a great deal of money on opening books and only play these same few openings and prefer familiar positions that I don't really have to think about until the middle game.

If I didn't have my pet lines to rely on, how am I going to win against stronger players?

Do you expect me to focus on studying tactics and endgames?

It takes almost 30 seconds to learn the rules and it's hard to wrap my head around placing the king between the rooks and the bishops on different colored squares, let alone that castling remains exactly the same.

To give an example I once played an OTB game of FR/960 with an opponent who never played it and it took almost 30 seconds to set up the pieces after deciding who was white and where the king went.

Then I had to decide where the rooks go.

My opponent then took a full 5 seconds to choose where bishops go, when I only took 3 seconds to place knights. And then he complained he had no choice as to where the queen went.

About 15 seconds of the time was explaining how castling didn't really change because the king and rook end up on the same squares.

TBH, I suppose I'm just stuck in my ways and don't like to try anything new that I might not be good at from the get go because I forget what it was like to be a beginner and identify as a FIDE rating as my pronoun.

This whole idea of FR/960 being a purer form of chess bothers me because it offers a more even playing field and it's also harder to draw it seems. And it's unfair to cheaters because it would mean it's harder to set up opening positions manually.

Finally, I hate to get beat by tactical players that know almost nothing about openings, it's just not fair that they haven't devoted decades to opening theory...mic drop.

@Prophiscient said in #60:

There’s pretty much a consensus that chess, with perfect play, is a draw.
Uh no it isn't a concensus. And consensus isn't truth either. History of science is full of "concensus" that ended up being proved wrong.
I’ve seen no evidence that...
Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Do you have any evidence and 960 position is a theoretical win?
Nope. And I'm not claiming that either. I am only claiming that you can't discard double Fischer random "because there could be a starting position that advantages white" while at the same time saying chess960 is ok, unless:

1. you have a proof that none of the 960 starting positions of chess960 is winning for white,
   AND
2. you can exhibit a starting position of double Fischer random that does advantage white.

chess960 fools deeply bored chess Masters in thinking they have a opportunity to demonstrate how good they really are at chess when players have no theoretical advantages playing with whites or few more years of experience over an opponent. 960 seems to equalize some aspects between chess players at first.

Unfortunately, rapid time control spoil the process by triggering blunders.

Not for peasants and patzers.

Heh, don't mind me. Just watching the titled players spaz out
https://imgur.com/40jhgWO

@polylogarithmique said in #67:

Uh no it isn't a concensus. And consensus isn't truth either. History of science is full of "concensus" that ended up being proved wrong.

Sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to someone with a PhD in the history and philosophy of science.

But yeah, I’m sure the evaluations of incredibly strong engines and GMs are less reliable than your obviously warranted skepticism.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Sorry, I didn’t know you had a PhD in philosophy specializing in epistemology. You are correct.

But if you’re claiming that it’s likely that chess or one of the 960 positions lead to a significant advantage for white, I’ll need to see some evidence.

Nope. And I'm not claiming that either. I am only claiming that you can't discard double Fischer random "because there could be a starting position that advantages white" while at the same time saying chess960 is ok, unless:

1. you have a proof that none of the 960 starting positions of chess960 is winning for white,

It’s sufficient for me to rely on very strong engines which show that the best position for white is +0.57. While this may be significant to an engine or with intensive opening prep, for players without these things, I don’t see any reason to think it would matter.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1JVT6_ROOlCTtMmazzBe0lhcGv54rB6JCq67QOhaRp6U/htmlview#gid=0

AND
2) you can exhibit a starting position of double Fischer random that does advantage white.

I’ve seen at least one position of Double Fischer Random that gave about +3 for white. That’d be significant for a decently strong player. Even if that evaluation isn’t entirely correct, it’s certainly strong evidence that the position is imbalanced.

960 seems like enough positions that maintains the symmetry between the two players, keeps all of the basic rules in chess, and does away with opening theory while allowing us to explore unique structures.

So yeah, I think there are good arguments for Fischer Random Chess and against Double Fischer Random.