Why Fischer Random sucks and

@subalias said:
> reasoning in a circle.
>false dichotomy
> The genetic fallacy.
> More circular reasoning.
> Evidence, please.
>completely subjective.

All true and you are not the first (but probably the most thorough) one to point it out. See #22 and #27 of this thread.

But, as Karl Kraus once said, problems of culture can only be discussed once the problem of being house-trained has been solved. My expectations are therefore pretty limited for boorchess giving us any valuable insight into why Fischer-chess is bad, pre-chess is good or why he addresses his audience with "patzers", as he does in #8.

Good luck.

krasnaya

I think Fischer Random is cool, but definitely has some problems.
See lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/suggestion-from-st-louis-960-event-limited-960#1

Placement chess is also cool. But it extends standard chess in another direction. Instead of randomness it emphasize importance of planning. And this is definitely one of the most important thing in war games :)

Yes Fischer random is flawed on a number of levels.

First and foremost is that chess is not a game of chance and has been argued as such throughout history to put on a higher plane than such games as poker and cards.

Secondly it is possible to draw a bad card and start the game from a losing position.

Lastly (for now), there are certain formations that are so mixed up and screwy the game lacks harmony to many players. This was what Karpov said and he is considered to be one of the best intuitive players of all time.

These points should be enough to give us pause before embracing 960. On the other hand Bronstein Shuffle appears to solve all of these issues as well the question of how to modify chess to get around computer preparation .

We should resist those who would degrade the game. @krasnaya

I would prefer Shuffle Chess without castling (maybe even without rules about where to place the pieces, so you're not restricted to bishops of opposite colours). That way you can always use FEN.