Just reading about otb 960 already makes me craving for such tournaments. I really dislike openingtheory and in 960 I feel more confident because of the lack of opponents prep. Now that I read that there are tournaments I will surely find one or more to play...
@RealDavidNavara
Considering your perspective, I acknowledge the difficulty in deviating from conventional chess and Chess 960. I comprehend your stance; it is indeed challenging to distance oneself from traditional chess dynamics. Fundamentally, my assertion is that the inclusion of an additional piece or two in standard chess presents a novel approach that remains within reasonable bounds. Seirawan-Chess represents an intriguing variation that could potentially captivate grandmasters, should they choose to experiment with it. Capablanca's proposal of a 10×8 board appears somewhat unconventional due to its non-square nature. Nevertheless, one could argue that the standard 8×8 board becomes somewhat congested when accommodating three queen-like pieces. A 9×9 board, in contrast, seems peculiar; it would undoubtedly provoke a continuous contest for the central square. Thus, the options appear limited. One possibility is to expand the board vertically to a configuration of 9×8 to facilitate the introduction of new pieces, albeit this represents an atypical board format. Nonetheless, in my perspective, viable alternatives are indeed sparse.
Considering your perspective, I acknowledge the difficulty in deviating from conventional chess and Chess 960. I comprehend your stance; it is indeed challenging to distance oneself from traditional chess dynamics. Fundamentally, my assertion is that the inclusion of an additional piece or two in standard chess presents a novel approach that remains within reasonable bounds. Seirawan-Chess represents an intriguing variation that could potentially captivate grandmasters, should they choose to experiment with it. Capablanca's proposal of a 10×8 board appears somewhat unconventional due to its non-square nature. Nevertheless, one could argue that the standard 8×8 board becomes somewhat congested when accommodating three queen-like pieces. A 9×9 board, in contrast, seems peculiar; it would undoubtedly provoke a continuous contest for the central square. Thus, the options appear limited. One possibility is to expand the board vertically to a configuration of 9×8 to facilitate the introduction of new pieces, albeit this represents an atypical board format. Nonetheless, in my perspective, viable alternatives are indeed sparse.
@Former_Player said in #10:
> No one can force you to play chess960. Others are able to decide without your friendly advice.
> No one can force you to play chess960. Others are able to decide without your friendly advice.
@Nordlandia said in #12:
> Frankly, I think 960, or 958 if you exclude the normal and mirror positions, are far too many positions. Could it not be something to shrink this number down to 100 or thereabouts. 100 positions that more or less resemble a normal setup. G. K. said 20 years ago that frankly speaking 95% of the positions are like poison in the eye. Rather, he said if the remaining percentages would be more like normal chess symmetry there might be a chance that this format could be something
Would be 959 if you exclude the regular starting position. 18 if you keep the king and rooks on their starting squares and just shuffle the others and 17 if you exclude the regular opening starting position. Even 17 would give a lot more variation than the standard chess openings.
> Frankly, I think 960, or 958 if you exclude the normal and mirror positions, are far too many positions. Could it not be something to shrink this number down to 100 or thereabouts. 100 positions that more or less resemble a normal setup. G. K. said 20 years ago that frankly speaking 95% of the positions are like poison in the eye. Rather, he said if the remaining percentages would be more like normal chess symmetry there might be a chance that this format could be something
Would be 959 if you exclude the regular starting position. 18 if you keep the king and rooks on their starting squares and just shuffle the others and 17 if you exclude the regular opening starting position. Even 17 would give a lot more variation than the standard chess openings.
@earlpurple
Chess18 is a ingenious concept. However, the major flaw of it is that it's "only" 17 positons and there is a fairly high chance that it can become computerized with theory eventually. I do believe like G.K. implicit asserts 5-10% range might be better than Chess18.
Chess18 is a ingenious concept. However, the major flaw of it is that it's "only" 17 positons and there is a fairly high chance that it can become computerized with theory eventually. I do believe like G.K. implicit asserts 5-10% range might be better than Chess18.
It will take a long time though for that to happen. In the meantime it would be interesting as new "openings" would develop and there isn't a massive amount of history to go on, plus remember that top GMs have to "memorize" lots of openings, and we're now talking about 18 times as many as present.
When I play chess960 the main problems I find is:
1. Queens in the corner are annoying.
2. Bishops in the corner are annoying as I have to fianchetto to get them out. I'd rather fianchettoing is a choice, not something foced on me.
3. Knights not developing to f3 in particular is annoying, but particularly knights in the corner.
So let's keep rooks in the corner. Maybe the king doesn't have to always start on the e-file though.
Kasparov suggested (and this was when Fischer was still alive and Kasparov was a top GM) that they be given the position in advance to prepare. And possibly that one particular position become "the standard" for a period of time but change every now and then. GMs like to do some preparation and actulaly so do I.
The most annoying thing about playing chess960 on lichess is that, regardless of the time control, I am expected to make my first move in something like 30-40 seconds.
A themed long arena with a slow time control (even 30+20) with the same start position throughout would enable us to prepare openings for it. Just the patterns of where we want to put our pieces, just like we do in standard chess, e.g. if we like a Pirc or Kings Indian style defence as black, if we like a Colle or London style as white, etc All those things could be something one could decide before having to play a move, and I'd guess if you asked some of the GMs, they'd welcome to be able to make their own opening preparation in advance.
Would it be more entertaining as a spectator sport? Maybe.. And then they have to decide what time control would interest the public - ideally I'd like something slower than what is normally "rapid" but a lot faster than what is normally "classical". 45+30 or even 45+45 (as a certain club on this site is a fan of). That would allow a 2-game match to be played in one sitting, with the same starting position and each contestant playing a game with the white pieces.
When I play chess960 the main problems I find is:
1. Queens in the corner are annoying.
2. Bishops in the corner are annoying as I have to fianchetto to get them out. I'd rather fianchettoing is a choice, not something foced on me.
3. Knights not developing to f3 in particular is annoying, but particularly knights in the corner.
So let's keep rooks in the corner. Maybe the king doesn't have to always start on the e-file though.
Kasparov suggested (and this was when Fischer was still alive and Kasparov was a top GM) that they be given the position in advance to prepare. And possibly that one particular position become "the standard" for a period of time but change every now and then. GMs like to do some preparation and actulaly so do I.
The most annoying thing about playing chess960 on lichess is that, regardless of the time control, I am expected to make my first move in something like 30-40 seconds.
A themed long arena with a slow time control (even 30+20) with the same start position throughout would enable us to prepare openings for it. Just the patterns of where we want to put our pieces, just like we do in standard chess, e.g. if we like a Pirc or Kings Indian style defence as black, if we like a Colle or London style as white, etc All those things could be something one could decide before having to play a move, and I'd guess if you asked some of the GMs, they'd welcome to be able to make their own opening preparation in advance.
Would it be more entertaining as a spectator sport? Maybe.. And then they have to decide what time control would interest the public - ideally I'd like something slower than what is normally "rapid" but a lot faster than what is normally "classical". 45+30 or even 45+45 (as a certain club on this site is a fan of). That would allow a 2-game match to be played in one sitting, with the same starting position and each contestant playing a game with the white pieces.
Yeah, I get it, it’s gonna take a while for ideas to pop up from 1-17. King on the queen's square feels kinda weird, but whatever. Corners for the rooks could be good. We played 60m + 30s in a local tourney over the weekend and people liked it. 45m+45 is pretty much the same, but I worry that games could stretch out a lot with 50% more time added, which could totally screw up the schedule if we hit over 100 moves.
@Druismat said in #21:
> Just reading about otb 960 already makes me craving for such tournaments. I really dislike openingtheory and in 960 I feel more confident because of the lack of opponents prep. Now that I read that there are tournaments I will surely find one or more to play...
When you say you "dislike opening theory" that can mean one of two things:
1. You do not have massive amounts of time to learn openings by rote (e.g. study Chessable courses until you know all the moves), and if your opponent does, you have a supposed disadvantage.
2. It's not your own games, but those of top GMs who do remember all the openings but then play them out so games don't reach novelties until move 17, and can lead to stale games, particularly as classical.
In chess960 I've come out terribly from playing the openings badly far more than I have in standard chess, but when this happens, I do feel at least it's my own fault and not simply because I didn't know the line and my opponent did. (I also recall playing in a chess960 arena on here where I was doing disastrously, then got paired against a far higher rated player and assumed I'd just get thrashed but ended up trapping their queen early on and winning... yeah that can happen).
> Just reading about otb 960 already makes me craving for such tournaments. I really dislike openingtheory and in 960 I feel more confident because of the lack of opponents prep. Now that I read that there are tournaments I will surely find one or more to play...
When you say you "dislike opening theory" that can mean one of two things:
1. You do not have massive amounts of time to learn openings by rote (e.g. study Chessable courses until you know all the moves), and if your opponent does, you have a supposed disadvantage.
2. It's not your own games, but those of top GMs who do remember all the openings but then play them out so games don't reach novelties until move 17, and can lead to stale games, particularly as classical.
In chess960 I've come out terribly from playing the openings badly far more than I have in standard chess, but when this happens, I do feel at least it's my own fault and not simply because I didn't know the line and my opponent did. (I also recall playing in a chess960 arena on here where I was doing disastrously, then got paired against a far higher rated player and assumed I'd just get thrashed but ended up trapping their queen early on and winning... yeah that can happen).
It seems there are split stances. Some think this chaos is alright while others are more keen on a middle ground between normal chess and 960. Again, I've heard that someone has said it would also be silly to alter 960 in the midst of the transition from a less popular to a more acceptable format. I do think however that you can totally play 960 without needing all the setups. Cutting down the number isn’t a bad move, at the end of the day.
@earlpurple said in #28:
> When you say you "dislike opening theory" that can mean one of two things:
> 1. You do not have massive amounts of time to learn openings by rote (e.g. study Chessable courses until you know all the moves), and if your opponent does, you have a supposed disadvantage.
> 2. It's not your own games, but those of top GMs who do remember all the openings but then play them out so games don't reach novelties until move 17, and can lead to stale games, particularly as classical.
Disliking openings started in the nineties where I managed to lose to kids who were not better than me but had prepped. Later I developed enough chess skills to work around the prep of my opponents but I did not understand the common opinion that studying openings was a part of chess. In the years that I was teaching chess to kids my main goal was to teach them finding moves not openings. Now I think that I very much like the creative part of chess and openings are still not important. Sure, there are people who were convinced that I could have reached a higher level if I did study theory but I see that different. Winning a chess game because of opening preparation aint fun and is, in my humble but stubborn opinion, not an achievement. Finding moves with my ownbrain is my big pleasure in chess and in 960 that is needed from the start. I played some 960 with an FM some years ago and found out I do quite ok
NB It was always very funny to ruin opponents prep just by playing some inferior moves and if they lost the game yhey often said but I was better out of the opening lol
> When you say you "dislike opening theory" that can mean one of two things:
> 1. You do not have massive amounts of time to learn openings by rote (e.g. study Chessable courses until you know all the moves), and if your opponent does, you have a supposed disadvantage.
> 2. It's not your own games, but those of top GMs who do remember all the openings but then play them out so games don't reach novelties until move 17, and can lead to stale games, particularly as classical.
Disliking openings started in the nineties where I managed to lose to kids who were not better than me but had prepped. Later I developed enough chess skills to work around the prep of my opponents but I did not understand the common opinion that studying openings was a part of chess. In the years that I was teaching chess to kids my main goal was to teach them finding moves not openings. Now I think that I very much like the creative part of chess and openings are still not important. Sure, there are people who were convinced that I could have reached a higher level if I did study theory but I see that different. Winning a chess game because of opening preparation aint fun and is, in my humble but stubborn opinion, not an achievement. Finding moves with my ownbrain is my big pleasure in chess and in 960 that is needed from the start. I played some 960 with an FM some years ago and found out I do quite ok
NB It was always very funny to ruin opponents prep just by playing some inferior moves and if they lost the game yhey often said but I was better out of the opening lol