Chess 960 / Fischer Random versus Placement Chess poll

@Groove_And_Chess interesting question!

Correct me if I am wrong: if the positions available in Fischer Random are a subset of those available in Placement Chess (provided the players choose a symmetric arrangement), couldn't we just have Placement Chess and then let the user decide/agree on whether they want to place their pieces à la Benko or have them arranged automatically in one of Fischer Random's positions?

Basically, if implemented properly, Placement Chess won't replace Fischer Random, as the latter can be made available at the users' request.

Cheers,
picchiolu

Placement chess is just dumb - chess 960 is far better

@YM17: Chess960 consists of a subset of the possible positions available in Placement Chess. You may argue that it's the only subset you like, of course... but still, you'd be able to play a game of chess960 if you let the computer pick a position for both players in a game of placement chess.

@picchiolu #21 yes that makes much sense.

@picchiolu #21

In Chess960, the king is always between the rooks but castling from any arrangement is always possible. In Placement chess the king and rook must be placed on their normal squares if the player wants to castle later. You'd still need slightly different rule sets for Chess960 even if both players somehow agreed to place symmetrically.

Placement is dumb only if it's limited version. In full placement version all pawns are placed too and you can use any of 1-4 rows. Game starts with empty board.
And that is just other level of chess, so good it is.

@Arcticpenguin Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that important detail. I stand corrected.

no one's voted thinking yet :)