Why Chess 960 is Bad • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

To clarify I love 960 and think it's the purest form of Chess. This post is to discuss rationally the pros and cons and how to make it more popular and solve some problems with it.

Why is 960 bad?

There is too many positions and this can be overwhelming.
In OTB games it takes longer to set up the pieces.
The castling rules.

Why is 960 great?

No need to memorize openings because it's more about tactics and endgame knowledge. It's a more even playing field. The biggest losers would be the tiniest percentage of chess players which are grand masters. The average player can beat much higher rated opponents that crush them with their pet lines in the standard game.

If I was king, I would simplify 960 down to only 8 positions and give them all names instead of numbers. We can use the international phonetic alphabet that every pilot in the world uses.

Alpha
Bravo
Charlie
Delta
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel

We can decide on the positions later by vote or by artificial intelligence and it's not important for the big picture. What is important is that they will breathe new life into chess for the next 1500 years. There will be far less draws. The most creative players will win.

In OTB games it's easy to set up the pieces.

Player 1 choses king and bishop placement.
Player 2 choses rook and knight placement.

As for OTB Castling rules, we either spend a minute and learn them or eliminate them all together. We can agree before the game which we prefer.

What would you call this new chess variant?

To clarify I love 960 and think it's the purest form of Chess. This post is to discuss rationally the pros and cons and how to make it more popular and solve some problems with it. Why is 960 bad? 1. There is too many positions and this can be overwhelming. 2. In OTB games it takes longer to set up the pieces. 3. The castling rules. Why is 960 great? No need to memorize openings because it's more about tactics and endgame knowledge. It's a more even playing field. The biggest losers would be the tiniest percentage of chess players which are grand masters. The average player can beat much higher rated opponents that crush them with their pet lines in the standard game. If I was king, I would simplify 960 down to only 8 positions and give them all names instead of numbers. We can use the international phonetic alphabet that every pilot in the world uses. 1. Alpha 2. Bravo 3. Charlie 4. Delta 5. Echo 6. Foxtrot 7. Golf 8. Hotel We can decide on the positions later by vote or by artificial intelligence and it's not important for the big picture. What is important is that they will breathe new life into chess for the next 1500 years. There will be far less draws. The most creative players will win. In OTB games it's easy to set up the pieces. Player 1 choses king and bishop placement. Player 2 choses rook and knight placement. As for OTB Castling rules, we either spend a minute and learn them or eliminate them all together. We can agree before the game which we prefer. What would you call this new chess variant?

ChessMVPmaster

#2

It’s good but I am not sure if it should be implemented. Anyway nice idea!

mrbasso

#3

8 positions are not nearly enough. Opening theory for them would be developed very quickly and it would be about the same sad state of affairs like in classical chess.
Amateurs of course would refuse this madness but Pros would certainly try to memorize it.

I don't think the high number of positions is the big problem of Fischer Random Chess.

The positions with the Bishops on a1 and h1 should have been eliminated because it limits the play and maybe some other ugly positions.

8 positions are not nearly enough. Opening theory for them would be developed very quickly and it would be about the same sad state of affairs like in classical chess. Amateurs of course would refuse this madness but Pros would certainly try to memorize it. I don't think the high number of positions is the big problem of Fischer Random Chess. The positions with the Bishops on a1 and h1 should have been eliminated because it limits the play and maybe some other ugly positions.

CasualPlays edited

#4

I kind of wish that Bronstein / pre-chess was implemented here. This is a variant where each player takes turns placing their pieces on the last rank, prior to the game starting. (For example - white places Rook on d1, black places bishop on g8, white places queen on c1, black places knight on f8, etc). This process continues until all pieces are placed, then the game starts. @boorchess is an advocate of this variant, stating that it allows for the highest degree of freedom and creativity - to which I wholeheartedly agree.

There is sort of a hack to play this variant on lichess using messaging, board editor and challenging from position (each player messages each other where to place the pieces, then one sends a game challenge from position), but this is a bit tedious to setup. Not to mention that it would be somewhat challenging to find players interested in going through this process with you.

I kind of wish that Bronstein / pre-chess was implemented here. This is a variant where each player takes turns placing their pieces on the last rank, prior to the game starting. (For example - white places Rook on d1, black places bishop on g8, white places queen on c1, black places knight on f8, etc). This process continues until all pieces are placed, then the game starts. @boorchess is an advocate of this variant, stating that it allows for the highest degree of freedom and creativity - to which I wholeheartedly agree. There is sort of a hack to play this variant on lichess using messaging, board editor and challenging from position (each player messages each other where to place the pieces, then one sends a game challenge from position), but this is a bit tedious to setup. Not to mention that it would be somewhat challenging to find players interested in going through this process with you.

RamblinDave edited

#5

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people actually like a bit of opening theory, just not too much. It's exciting to see what new ideas top players are going to come up with in a well-known position, particularly in a position that's quite similar to ones that you've played yourself.

I dunno, maybe someone could come up with a scheme where we randomly select a 960-ish starting position and run tournaments in it, at a variety of levels, for the next year? Then the theory gradually develops over the course of the year, before being reset again. Although maybe with modern engines people would just figure out most of the best lines by running a supercomputer for a few days, and then we'd suddenly have reams of theory again.

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people actually like a bit of opening theory, just not too much. It's exciting to see what new ideas top players are going to come up with in a well-known position, particularly in a position that's quite similar to ones that you've played yourself. I dunno, maybe someone could come up with a scheme where we randomly select a 960-ish starting position and run tournaments in it, at a variety of levels, for the next year? Then the theory gradually develops over the course of the year, before being reset again. Although maybe with modern engines people would just figure out most of the best lines by running a supercomputer for a few days, and then we'd suddenly have reams of theory again.

GoneSoul

#6

@CasualPlays said in #4:

I kind of wish that Bronstein / pre-chess was implemented here. This is a variant where each player takes turns placing their pieces on the last rank, prior to the game starting. (For example - white places Rook on d1, black places bishop on g8, white places queen on c1, black places knight on f8, etc). This process continues until all pieces are placed, then the game starts. @boorchess is an advocate of this variant, stating that it allows for the highest degree of freedom and creativity - to which I wholeheartedly agree.

There is sort of a hack to play this variant on lichess using messaging, board editor and challenging from position (each player messages each other where to place the pieces, then one sends a game challenge from position), but this is a bit tedious to setup. Not to mention that it would be somewhat challenging to find players interested in going through this process with you.

I played a version of this one time where you not only chose where the pieces went, but you also "spent" points on choosing pieces. So for instance, you could choose to have 2 queens by giving up your knights and a bishop. There were also custom pieces with different point values.

@CasualPlays said in #4: > I kind of wish that Bronstein / pre-chess was implemented here. This is a variant where each player takes turns placing their pieces on the last rank, prior to the game starting. (For example - white places Rook on d1, black places bishop on g8, white places queen on c1, black places knight on f8, etc). This process continues until all pieces are placed, then the game starts. @boorchess is an advocate of this variant, stating that it allows for the highest degree of freedom and creativity - to which I wholeheartedly agree. > > There is sort of a hack to play this variant on lichess using messaging, board editor and challenging from position (each player messages each other where to place the pieces, then one sends a game challenge from position), but this is a bit tedious to setup. Not to mention that it would be somewhat challenging to find players interested in going through this process with you. I played a version of this one time where you not only chose where the pieces went, but you also "spent" points on choosing pieces. So for instance, you could choose to have 2 queens by giving up your knights and a bishop. There were also custom pieces with different point values.

pigeonpal

#7

I don't think the large number of positions is a problem in itself, but in some positions white has big advantage in moving first. So in this sense it is less fair than traditional chess.

pointlesswindows

#8

It makes no sense to learn any opening in the 960 as the positions are random and it's a pain to get out of the opening with a playable position. Still better than bullet chess.

ungewichtet edited

#9

In the German wikipedia article on chess 960 it is written the name they were looking for was not to have a name of a GM in it, and not to have parts in it with possible negative connotations (like for example 'freestyle' or 'random'), and it was to be universally understood. So I like to call it Fischer Random :)

@Sacmaniac
The overwhelming number of possible starting positions diffuses any idea of opening theory- it is the very means. If you do want to have a game were creativity trumps theory, you'd generally welcome this. If we reduce it to 8 positions, it is 8 times harder to be a theorist, but it will be necessary to do that work (to some degree) in order to have chances to win (at some level).

Setting up the pieces, virtually or over the board, we should set up randomly generated positions, to not go to certain set ups by our choice. The original idea was we do not want to feel at home with the starting position. That it takes time otb is no loss of time, because we get acquainted with the starting position during set-up.

Giving up on castling would make it chess 480 (because of left-right symmetries broken no longer by c- and g-castling). But chess 480 would be random enough, I guess.

Still, I like your idea of 8 positions emerging as especially desirable starting positions. No doubt there will be more and less interesting random starting positions, why not try to find 8 essential ones, or 8 most different ones, if there are.
Your suggestion to use the international phonetic alphabet- that every pilot in the world uses- to name them is a nice one. The pilot's view illustrates our gain in control, reducing random to favourite 8. (It also chimes in with a-h and 1-8). But I am also strictly against an unnecessary militarization and I am against the notion of the one player, the all-seeing eye. Therefore, I'd rather emphasize the theatrical, cicus and ballet character of chess. Allowing the idea that the 8 positions would be chosen so as to be most different from one another, we could call it troupes chess.

In the German wikipedia article on chess 960 it is written the name they were looking for was not to have a name of a GM in it, and not to have parts in it with possible negative connotations (like for example 'freestyle' or 'random'), and it was to be universally understood. So I like to call it Fischer Random :) @Sacmaniac The overwhelming number of possible starting positions diffuses any idea of opening theory- it is the very means. If you do want to have a game were creativity trumps theory, you'd generally welcome this. If we reduce it to 8 positions, it is 8 times harder to be a theorist, but it will be necessary to do that work (to some degree) in order to have chances to win (at some level). Setting up the pieces, virtually or over the board, we should set up randomly generated positions, to not go to certain set ups by our choice. The original idea was we do not want to feel at home with the starting position. That it takes time otb is no loss of time, because we get acquainted with the starting position during set-up. Giving up on castling would make it chess 480 (because of left-right symmetries broken no longer by c- and g-castling). But chess 480 would be random enough, I guess. Still, I like your idea of 8 positions emerging as especially desirable starting positions. No doubt there will be more and less interesting random starting positions, why not try to find 8 essential ones, or 8 most different ones, if there are. Your suggestion to use the international phonetic alphabet- that every pilot in the world uses- to name them is a nice one. The pilot's view illustrates our gain in control, reducing random to favourite 8. (It also chimes in with a-h and 1-8). But I am also strictly against an unnecessary militarization and I am against the notion of the one player, the all-seeing eye. Therefore, I'd rather emphasize the theatrical, cicus and ballet character of chess. Allowing the idea that the 8 positions would be chosen so as to be most different from one another, we could call it troupes chess.

Splorer

#10

@Sacmaniac said in #1:

In OTB games it's easy to set up the pieces.

Player 1 choses king and bishop placement.
Player 2 choses rook and knight placement.
I don't think that's compatible with only 8 opening positions. Player 1 can create 8 unique positions just by placing his king in different squares before any of the other pieces are placed.

@Sacmaniac said in #1: > In OTB games it's easy to set up the pieces. > > Player 1 choses king and bishop placement. > Player 2 choses rook and knight placement. I don't think that's compatible with only 8 opening positions. Player 1 can create 8 unique positions just by placing his king in different squares before any of the other pieces are placed.