Why Fischer Random sucks and

Chess960 reminds me a bit of the numerous people who can't set a foot before the other without staring at their smart-phone or people taking the car to do their shopping at the next corner instead of using their legs. How can someone even think about putting chess and randomizing ideas into one pot? I think pre-chess is by far the better way to start the game. An additional benefit were to dump castling.

Not mentioning that pre-chess has its own immediately apparent flaws, even if you believe it is better than chess 960, it does not follow that chess 960 sucks. Just recently in the champions showdown, almost every top player there affirmed that they wanted chess 960 to be played more, and there were even claims that chess 960 is preferable to chess and that chess 960 should be integrated into regular chess events.

@MartialCultivatorMC What flaws ?

THe OP clearly hasn't had much to do with kids. As a teacher, I know that using a randomisation device wold be very interesting for kids and not a drawback at all.

The thread title "Why Fischerrandom sucks" is a clear indicator of the depth of thought that went in to the OP.

@boorchess

You're not doing a good job of making making your case.

It is just better!

A bald assertion. Also, it's your conclusion, so you're reasoning in a circle.

Chess is about logical planning, not randomization.

You're inferring these are incompatible choices, which is a false dichotomy. Chess960 requires logical planning.

Do we really want to follow the suggestion of Fischer who obviously suffered from mental illness [...]

The genetic fallacy. The source of an idea doesn't determine its value. Ideas stand on their own.

There are better ways to increase the scope of the game [...]

More circular reasoning.

It has gained very little traction because it is has a disorienting and ugly feel to it. This is not just my opinion but the feeling of most strong players and the masses of online players.

Evidence, please. I saw Kasparov, Topalov, Aronian, and So interviewed during the recent 960 Champions Showdown, and they all liked it.

It is not that fun to play.

That's completely subjective. I personally agree that some positions are not fun, but some are.

Pre-Chess could become mainstream in perhaps a year or less!

Another unsupported claim, one that seems pretty far-fetched.

Take a moment and just consider how great it would be to have "your" set up

Why would you assume everyone is going to feel the same as you? Personally, I don't want custom setups, and see no need for them. There's no sign that most players will ever be anywhere near good enough to need a more complex variant of chess, and there is a lot of reason to think that players love the game as it is. As Kasparov said himself, just yesterday, 960 only makes a difference for players at high levels. The same would be true for Pre-Chess. I wouldn't give up standard chess for either, nor any other game at all.

Maybe try it first before you have an opinon about it. Oh wait it is not yet playable online anywhere.

Pity.

I have a question. How does Castling work in this mode. Since you can put your pieces any where, you might not have, for example, the Rook to the right of the king. Can you still castle on that side? Or how does that work?

@RayStormThunder from opening post quantumgambitz.com link:

Castling is permitted only if the unmoved king is on e1/e8 and an unmoved rook is on a1/a8 or h1/h8; orthodox castling rules apply.

I would be cool with a modification that integrated 960 rules about castling. It would add even more permutations to the game this way.

@gbtami let's keep our game going !

@boorchess

Now it's "you should try it first" nonsense. We can't all try everything. Everyone (that would include you) has to make judgments based on limited information, and I've learned all I need. In particular, I strongly dislike the idea of choosing setups. Also, like I implied, I love standard chess too much to consider a replacement.