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

@Prophiscient If basic logic / basic knowledge equals having a PhD for you, I don't know what else to say to you.

No engine is claiming chess is a draw, for the obvious reason that all an engine does is to give an evaluation based on a certain number of moves. 0.0 does not mean "the position is a draw" but "no player has a clear advantage", where "clear" means that the engine can detect it.

And I strongly doubt that any strong GM is claiming chess is a draw either.

@polylogarithmique said in #71:

@Prophiscient If basic logic / basic knowledge equals having a PhD for you, I don't know what else to say to you.

No engine is claiming chess is a draw, for the obvious reason that all an engine does is to give an evaluation based on a certain number of moves. 0.0 does not mean "the position is a draw" but "no player has a clear advantage", where "clear" means that the engine can detect it.

And I strongly doubt that any strong GM is claiming chess is a draw either.

Many strong GMs think chess is a draw with perfect play.

There is no evidence for a significant advantage for white in any 960 position.

Engines show that in Double Fischer Random some positions do significantly advantage white.

So your logic is clearly flawed.

@Prophiscient said in #72:

Many strong GMs think chess is a draw with perfect play.
I contest this point.

As for the other ones, we already discussed them and there is no point in repeating exactly the same arguments.

So your logic is clearly flawed.
If you say so :D

I guess playing with the same starting position every game is cool.

"Why not experience the full possibilities chess has to offer with Fischer Random Chess/Chess960?"
I don't think so.

@pointlesswindows said in #74:

I guess playing with the same starting position every game is cool.

How is it more cool than having 959 other starting positions?

"Why not experience the full possibilities chess has to offer with Fischer Random Chess/Chess960?"
I don't think so.

Why not?

@ungewichtet said in #37:

I mentioned the quality of the rook to have the same reach on any square, so corners are finest for the rooks in view of group mobility.

Most of the time, a rook is not on the corner if castling occurs (which it usually does). Also, if the corners are really the best places for the rooks, you can just move them there in a 960 game. I don't see the issue.

"Disrespectful", the term is your suggestion. If anything it is dismissive of the meaning of the standard piece set and placement. My friend @Sacmaniac , 960-lover and a nice spokesman for the cause like you, as well, likes to see the pieces as an arsenal of different weapons. He has also designed a chess set purely out of geometrical forms. Not seeing the agency of the pieces- we play pieces that have choices of directions- means giving up on meaning.

Again, you're hyper-focusing on the names of the pieces and their symbolism. Chess is a game (or sport). The pieces are a means to an end (checkmating the opponent). The best setup isn't the one with the best symbolism based on whatever story you concoct. The best setup is the one that maximizes chances to checkmate the opponent and minimize your chances of being checkmated. In 960, your goal is to start from whatever position you're given to reach these goals without relying on prior knowledge. Chess has the same goal but it allows for prior knowledge.

If you really wanna stick to the spirit of chess, 960 actually accomplishes this better. In ancient times, people didn't have access to opening theory (because it wasn't developed yet), and engine preparation didn't exist (because engines didn't exist yet). Chess, in its purest form, is building structure out of an unfamiliar position to reach a goal (checkmating the opponent).

Do you think people in ancient times were relying on preparation before games and engines? Obviously not. Chess960 brings us to closer to what chess was supposed to be. Modern chess is a bastardization of what chess was meant to be due to opening theory and preparation.

Clinging to the meaning is not romanticizing. Dismissing it does not bring us closer to chess but farther away. But go on and pretend you are just pushing around pieces of wood or 2-d sets of them ;)

You're not clinging to the real meaning or spirit of chess. You're clinging to the modern bastardization of chess. Interestingly, chess960, despite changing the starting position, actually brings us closer to the old spirit and meaning of chess.

I agree with the silver platter. Just like life. No need to reverse engineer the big bang ;)

The old chess has been corrupted with modern innovations that are killing the game. Chess960 is the best way we have to bring back the old spirit and meaning of chess. Why do you think so many top GMs have created new variants to save the game? Fischer, Capablanca, Seirawan, etc. Even Kasparov and other modern top GMs have endorsed chess960. Even FIDE has officially recognized and held an official World Championship in Fischer Random just a few days ago.

It's because it's clear that chess is dying, and chess960 is the best way of saving the old chess while maintaining its flavor and spirit.

Agreed, but it should not be called chess, which is that other thing. I brought up the number (518) myself, but while Chess 960 incorporates the standard position, chess will never be SP001-960. Well.. or so I hope :)

We can have two chesses. The old chess and the new chess.

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.

We have allowed it. Having Chess 960, we ought to play some. (I like it, for sure). No gain, only loss to try to take over chess.

Chess can exist, but it is important for chess960 to overtake it as the main way chess is played. Because the old chess has killed the spirit and meaning behind chess. Chess960 gives us a chance to revive that old spirit and meaning that we all love and want out of chess.

Chess was never meant to be about familiar positions and opening traps. It's meant to be about creativity over the board. Again, the ancients who created chess didn't have access to opening theory or engines to prepare. They played based on creativity. Over the centuries, that creativity became more and more reduced as people overanalyzed the starting position. Creativity still exists to some degree in chess, but it's becoming less and less relevant as theory continues to grow. Chess960 brings back the creativity that the ancients got to experience.

People play too much to win. Or they would all play all sorts of openings and not be bored and maimed.

People play games to win and for fun. If one is disadvantaged for creativity (which they are in the old chess), then something is fundamentally wrong with the game. Chess960 incentivizes creativity. The old chess punishes it.

You making all the points for 960 doesn't make traditional chess pointless!

I agree that there's room for the old chess to exist. But we need to start promoting chess960 as the main chess for the spirit and meaning of chess.

Chess 960 is part of the chess world. It has been established as an original game. Praise it, praise it, praise it, cast no shadow on chess :)

We should praise it and expand it. Chess has a place, but we need to be honest about how modern innovations have fundamentally changed the game from the original spirit and meaning that the ancients got to experience. Chess960 brings that spirit and meaning back to the game.

standard chess is standard chess
960 chess is another type of chess
objectively, the only rule change is the initial position. And even that, standard chess in included in 960 chess (if it were not random.... it might be a sizeable part of the experience for half the games of those thinking it is the only chess worth experiencing, assuming fairness made of obligatory pairs of game counting as one experience, where each first turn can decide which 960).

all the strict legal position transitions, are following same stict mobilitiy rules.. termination rules are the same, and even castling is an extension of the standard and reduces exactly to that of standard when 960 starts with standard....

Really, the only thing i see as essentially non-chessy, is the random obligation for each and every rated game... as if there was not other way to balanced the odds and favor more initial chess atmosphere re-entry angles.....

I wonder if Fishers only input into 960 is the random aspect.. because if not, i would agree that he was somehow enlightened about the gist of what is fun is chess... discovering dynamics patterns out of spatial ones or static ones from a given board position... the more logically related position input the merrier....

for me chess is about the moving things. so i don't accept clinging to one term chess for only one variant...just add standard to it.. and we can discuss about real things.... not words.

@Prophiscient said in #76:

Also, if the corners are really the best places for the rooks, you can just move them there in a 960 game. I don't see the issue.

You are trying to address everything from anybody here, which is wow. Now what is the issue?

Again, you're hyper-focusing on the names of the pieces and their symbolism.

Their eventual names do not matter, their function does.

Chess is a game (or sport).

Let's not preclude what chess is, just leave it open.

The pieces are a means to an end (checkmating the opponent).

.. or not getting checkmated.

The best setup isn't the one with the best symbolism based on whatever story you concoct.

There's a story in chess, it is not cooked up. Chess is playing out a story. Whenever you are trying to abstract from it, you will work it to light.

The best setup is the one that maximizes chances to checkmate the opponent and minimize your chances of being checkmated.

How does your statement make sense? If the setup is fair at all, it would give this maxi-mini to both sides. Alright, it does that. It does not give a random semi-awkward position, but a well worked out one, life on a silver platter. Any setup good for this would do. And it may be that, while there is a pick, not arbitrary but contingent, it is only in tune with telling the chess tale to choose one setup and stick with it.

In 960, your goal is to start from whatever position you're given to reach these goals without relying on prior knowledge. Chess has the same goal but it allows for prior knowledge.

Correct.

If you really wanna stick to the spirit of chess, 960 actually accomplishes this better. In ancient times, people didn't have access to opening theory (because it wasn't developed yet), and engine preparation didn't exist (because engines didn't exist yet).

Now going for the true spirit of chess. Was the ancient situation without engines one without opening theory? Certainly not. Play produced opening knowledge. In some places, numerous tabyas with pittoresque names were developed, catching the spirit of opening play of the time and region. (Tabyias were played through to generate certain accepted positions to start real play from).

Chess, in its purest form, is building structure out of an unfamiliar position to reach a goal (checkmating the opponent)

(.. or not getting checkmated).
The first chess players were not new to the game, they were the numerous inventors. They were probably happy having gotten familiar with their starting positions to get going a coherent game to share.

Chess960 brings us closer to what chess was supposed to be. Modern chess is a bastardization of what chess was meant to be due to opening theory and preparation.

Maybe chess is mocking the modern players who, for the sake of success, put in too much of their life into aquiring an arsenal to open a game of chess. Morphy's 'to play chess is the sign of the gentleman; to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life' is not against chess but against misled aspirations. 960, I would argue, throws this lesson away. We do not play chess right, yet, but 960 will not teach us. Chess is a game too beautiful to give up prematurely, and 960 a game too ugly to take up prematurely :)

Why do you think so many top GMs have created new variants to save the game? Fischer, Capablanca, Seirawan, etc. Even Kasparov and other modern top GMs have endorsed chess960. Even FIDE has officially recognized and held an official World Championship in Fischer Random just a few days ago.

These greats looked for interesting alternatives, Fischer's randomizing being most radical.

It's because it's clear that chess is dying, and chess960 is the best way of saving the old chess while maintaining its flavor and spirit.

It is not dying because it is a game for the women, men and kids in the streets, it is for the people to play. It can be played happily on highest level as long as you don't let it get the best of you.
960 takes this responsabilty for yourself out, you do not learn to say ah, enough of theory, I will play this on my own, because in 960, you can't help being on your own.
I am very much in doubt whether the whatever position comes of 960 has anything to do with the original spirit and the flavor the ancients experienced. Okay, I believe this 'bringing back the true spirit' is rubbish. Back then, they were looking for a common ground to play, not for a random jungle. The hundreds of local chess variants around when the chess family tree spread were not leaning toward random at all in as much as the autonomy of chess pieces developed away from games with dice. Like today, people were not afraid of sharing and losing- but for ambition. What is wrong to have memory, intuition and momentary creative sprouts going hand in hand in hand? Who cannot balance the balance play 960.. Meet you there for the odd scramble :)

@Prophiscient ... You said I was Right at first (Chess is the greatest game ever invented) then said something else' to keep responding to queries about your Chess 960 Post , Obviously Chess 960 is a variant of Chess . It will always remain so . So play the variant but please don't respond when I declared case closed . Chess 960 will always be a variant of Chess as that is what it is ,,, Just a matter of Fact . Just in case you don't know why people play Chess it's because they Love Playing Chess & we don't have to play variants if we choose not to or can play them at our own discretion & amounts ... However Chess is Chess & Chess 960 is a variant

@ungewichtet said in #78:

You are trying to address everything from anybody here, which is wow. Now what is the issue?

I’m only addressing what I think should be addressed.

Their eventual names do not matter, their function does.

Yes. And the beauty of chess is navigating pieces through positions so that their function can best be used to achieve your goal (checkmating the opponent). Chess960 keeps this same purpose with the same game dynamics. It just gives the opportunity to avoid the same positions over and over again and avoid people preparing beforehand.

Let's not preclude what chess is, just leave it open.

Chess is a game. It’s arguably a sport. Acknowledging this doesn’t preclude what chess is in any meaningful way. Unless you think chess isn’t a game which is absurd.

.. or not getting checkmated.

You can’t get checkmated if you checkmate your opponent. The primary goal of chess is to checkmate your opponent. Not getting checkmated (i.e. going for a draw) is a secondary purpose if the primary purpose can’t be accomplished.

There's a story in chess, it is not cooked up. Chess is playing out a story. Whenever you are trying to abstract from it, you will work it to light.

You can build stories from the game if you want. That just means chess960 gives us 959 new starting prompts with countless new possibilities for the story to go.

You want to play out the same story over and over again with only minor changes. What’s the fun in that?

How does your statement make sense? If the setup is fair at all, it would give this maxi-mini to both sides. Alright, it does that. It does not give a random semi-awkward position, but a well worked out one, life on a silver platter. Any setup good for this would do. And it may be that, while there is a pick, not arbitrary but contingent, it is only in tune with telling the chess tale to choose one setup and stick with it.

You completely failed to understand my point. The starting position should be equal or close to equal. From that, we manipulate the position to maximize our chances of winning and minimize our chances of losing. That is the game of chess.

960 gives us 959 new positions from which to achieve this goal with practically endless possibilities. The old chess gives us one starting position that usually ends in familiar structures. That’s way less interesting.

Now going for the true spirit of chess. Was the ancient situation without engines one without opening theory? Certainly not. Play produced opening knowledge. In some places, numerous tabyas with pittoresque names were developed, catching the spirit of opening play of the time and region. (Tabyias were played through to generate certain accepted positions to start real play from).

When chess was first created, there was no opening theory. It was a pure game of creativity.

Over the centuries, people realized they’d have a better chance of winning by developing theory. Because there was so little theory and players didn’t have much knowledge, there were still ways to outwit your opponent and come up with novelties. However, especially with the emergence of engines (which creates a new era of soulless chess), theory has virtually destroyed the game.

Luckily, arguably the best player in chess history recognized this problem and made a slight innovation of the rules that solves this problem easily and saves the game.

Theory can still be developed for 960. But it will be made based on chess principles and understanding as opposed to using a computer to memorize move sequences with little understanding.

(.. or not getting checkmated).

You can’t get checkmated if you checkmate your opponent. Checkmating the opponent is the primary purpose of chess. Not getting checkmated is a secondary purpose you fall back on if you’re unable to complete your primary purpose.

The first chess players were not new to the game, they were the numerous inventors. They were probably happy having gotten familiar with their starting positions to get going a coherent game to share.

The first chess players invented an unfamiliar position and played from it. They couldn’t have been familiar with something that didn’t yet exist.

Maybe chess is mocking the modern players who, for the sake of success, put in too much of their life into aquiring an arsenal to open a game of chess. Morphy's 'to play chess is the sign of the gentleman; to play chess well is the sign of a wasted life' is not against chess but against misled aspirations. 960, I would argue, throws this lesson away. We do not play chess right, yet, but 960 will not teach us. Chess is a game too beautiful to give up prematurely, and 960 a game too ugly to take up prematurely :)

So basically, we should just accept that people who waste their lives on chess will always win in virtue of memorization? That’s depressing for a game as amazing as chess.

You’re basically accepting that you either lose or waste your life on the game.

These greats looked for interesting alternatives, Fischer's randomizing being most radical.

Fischer’s version is the least radical. It keeps all the same possible moves in chess (including castling), the same pieces and movements, the same objective. Everything is the same except the pieces are randomized.

And it’s even a very conservative version of shuffle chess with restraints on how the pieces are randomized. Bishops have to be on opposite colored squares to allow for the full dynamics of chess. The king has to be in between the rooks to allow for casting on both sides. Pawns start on their traditional squares. And black and white have mirrored positions. This isn’t radical at all. It’s actually beautiful.

It is not dying because it is a game for the women, men and kids in the streets, it is for the people to play. It can be played happily on highest level as long as you don't let it get the best of you.

So basically, chess has to be given up at the competitive and professional levels? We need to just let theory dominate? The only people who can have fun are the people who don’t take the game seriously?

Nah. I agree that theory impacts the people who don’t take chess seriously less than at competitive and professional levels, but we should have a game that can be enjoyed by ALL. At the level of casual players, competitive/club/tournament players, AND professional players.

960 takes this responsabilty for yourself out, you do not learn to say ah, enough of theory, I will play this on my own, because in 960, you can't help being on your own.

Chess isn’t about life lessons. It’s a game. We want that game to be fun, fair, and to promote creativity. Currently, theory and repetitive positions are taking the fun, fairness, and creativity out of chess. Why would we want a game where you have to devote your life to studying specific moves instead of just being good at understanding the game?

I am very much in doubt whether the whatever position comes of 960 has anything to do with the original spirit and the flavor the ancients experienced. Okay, I believe this 'bringing back the true spirit' is rubbish. Back then, they were looking for a common ground to play, not for a random jungle. The hundreds of local chess variants around when the chess family tree spread were not leaning toward random at all in as much as the autonomy of chess pieces developed away from games with dice. Like today, people were not afraid of sharing and losing- but for ambition. What is wrong to have memory, intuition and momentary creative sprouts going hand in hand in hand? Who cannot balance the balance play 960.. Meet you there for the odd scramble :)

The ancients were innovators in unexplored territory. They didn’t have opening theory or engine evaluations to study to tell them what to play. They didn’t play pre-planned moves based on books and engines. They saw a fresh position that was recently created and used their own thinking and creativity to bring order to the chaos.

In chess, you don’t use your own creativity to bring order to chaos. If you want real chess success, you study games other people played, copy them to get familiar positions you’ve had multiple times before, and then maybe come up with a novelty or you or your opponent forgets theory and makes a mistake.

In chess960 you think from the very first move. Your own creativity is present in every move. That’s way more beautiful than rote memorization based on games other people already played.