Hey,
As a chess 960 fan I love the fact it's not me v some pre-planned opening, or vice versa. Should I really get such a strong edge in a strategy game based solely on the fact that I memorized an opening really well?
So.... To make specific opening prep even more redundant I do think a non-symmetric chess960 could be a very enjoyable variant.
Effectively I get 1 of 960 possible opening possible, my opponent also gets allocated 1 of 960 possible opening positions, selected randomly, not dependent at all on mine.
And yeah some times one side has an advantage in that maybe their structure has an edge v the non-symetric side. But how is that any different to standard chess? If you're white you have an edge anyway. Plus if you're slightly more tired you may perform poorer. So to me sometimes you benefit and other times you don't.
Plus, even at world championship chess, as we saw this year, A computer analysis of an edge != obtaining an edge as a human. Even Carlsen and Caruana can't see through the chess board mess so why should we be expected to? So to me it's theoretically an issue more than a practical one regarding any black or white advantage as at start of game. And if it were, then maybe 2 games per position switch sides in a chess960 (symmetric or non-symetric) tournament.
What are the communities thoughts on this?
I'm not suggesting that it be added, just speaking for the fun of it, but a version of chess where you set up your 8 pieces in any order you like would be cool as well; your setup would be hidden from your opponent until both players clicked 'start' or something.
What's wrong with opening preparation? We all do it; it is expected if you want to win games. If you don't want to book up on openings... well, why are you playing chess? Do you want it to be 'easier'? The original rules allow for plenty of creative, exciting play still, on the level that most of us are at; ie, not the world championship level.
It ain't broke, guys. We can still have fun with it. I do, you do; the evidence is this very website.
Play and enjoy.
MR
Thanks MR
What's wrong with opening prep?
Nothing. I also see no problem memorising the first 1000 digits of pi if that's what tickles someone's fancy.
Why are you playing chess?
The reason I play is because I enjoy the game of chess. This 1v1 mental battle. I also think that many historic games are works of art. If replaced my memorisation I no longer see the beauty.
I personally prefer the idea of not memorising openings but instead on the spot usage of the brain to attempt to make the best move.
Do you want it to be easier?
No. Easier is poorly defined. I personally don't struggle memorising things. But memorisation is not something that I enjoy doing if I have the option to instead solve a puzzle.
I find it difficult to rate ones decision making as superior when it's on the basis of 'the book said so'. Given this I personally prefer chess960.
I personally find classical easier than chess960 but dislike the repetitiveness.
I am in no way saying chess960 is better in any absolute sense. It just aligns better than standard with my own ideal of chess.
One could argue that opening theory makes chess 'easier'.
Anyway, I enjoy both variants of chess.
Every one is testing out their memory skills rather than playing chess in a way. At least the first half of the game unless they are patzers like me. After rattling out the first 20 or so moves, the actual game starts. So chess 960 >>>> classical chess
Hey,
Theres a site,
vchess.club/, where you can play chess variants with shuffled starting positions
For 960
vchess.club/Chess960 Grandchess 10x10 i also enjoy, but you can check out all the other variants too
If someones lobbying a game you can join and have a casual game (no time control, no rating)
If no ones lobbying you can lobby a game, or you can play the AI. Also possible is to lobby a game while playing AI.
Maybe well meet there sometime:)
@Microraver > What's wrong with opening preparation? We all do it; it is expected if you want to win games. If you don't want to book up on openings... well, why are you playing chess?
Some people play chess, not so much to win games but rather for the joy of finding creative solutions to problems and of fighting. Spending hours learning opening theory is crazy. The knowledge you gain is worthless, as its application is limited to a game, which by nature is inconsequential. If my actual goal was to raise my rating, then I know that I could easily do it by doing such a study. But I will never do such a thing. Why would I? Raising my rating is of course not an end in itself. If it was, then even cheating would be a good idea.
Coming back to OP, I also think that Chess960 doesn't offer enough variety to entirely solve the problem. Still it's a wonderful invention, and I think I will completely switch to it.
I'd never play OPs suggested variant, but I'm all for including it nonetheless... it sounds interesting. :)
the only problem is: How would you name it? Chess 960^2?
I'm sorry
@Orderly, but I enjoy most aspects of chess. Including researching solutions to specific opening configurations arrived at by masters many years before... I enjoy looking at the contexts of opening theory and prep, and connecting to the history of the game by keeping odd or obscure opening lines alive. I think that it's all a part of the game as it is. To imagine that this aspect of the game somehow detracts from it, or imagining that one who engages in the research of openings is somehow inferior is not in keeping with the fun of the game. It sounds like a 'personal' opinion, and as such, should not be cited as a reason to alter the rules of the game.
"Spending hours learning opening theory is crazy. The knowledge you gain is worthless, as its application is limited to a game, which by nature is inconsequential." Well, that sounds like the end of this discussion. Why are you playing chess, again?
Also... we all want to win games. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
MR
