Better is blank chess, where your first rank is empty, and you place you pieces on the board during the first 8 moves. Exponential more starting positions than 960/480 and definitely no way to prepare a complete opening system as there is no way to know your opponent's setup.
Maybe we could invent a new variant where you setup your opponent's pieces, and you study which is the worse starting position. Knights in the corner to limit their movement, and bishops on the center files.
Maybe we could invent a new variant where you setup your opponent's pieces, and you study which is the worse starting position. Knights in the corner to limit their movement, and bishops on the center files.
This was a very interesting blog post, but I'm not quite sure what the author is talking about when he repeatedly describes the chess960 castling rules as complicated or hard to comprehend. The rules are exactly the same: Neither the king nor rook may have moved; the king can not cross through a square that is under attack; and the rook and king end up on exactly the same squares as they do in the standard set up. What is complicated about this?
The story about Fischer changing his opinion on the ten-positions idea once he learned it was Kasparov's is pretty funny, assuming it is true.
The story about Fischer changing his opinion on the ten-positions idea once he learned it was Kasparov's is pretty funny, assuming it is true.
@Chessty_McBiggins
In some variants of 960, the king moved 2 squares toward the rook just as in standard chess. This caused problems when the king was on a knight file, so the rule was changed. But, yes, in today's accepted 960 rules, castling is not complicated.
In some variants of 960, the king moved 2 squares toward the rook just as in standard chess. This caused problems when the king was on a knight file, so the rule was changed. But, yes, in today's accepted 960 rules, castling is not complicated.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.