What do you think about Fischer Random Chess (Chess 960)?

[Ritch]

I like Fischer Random chess because memory play a minor factor in the game, and let the creativity and strategy rise from the very first move.

Many people that love chess but has scarce time for studying opening theory (or even to play it!) can lost --or at least enter to weak middlegame-- just because his opponent has memorized many opening lines.

I like Fischer Random chess become more popular.

What do you think?

[GeneM]

.

I like Fischer Random chess because memory play a minor factor in the game

Maybe, but I disagree with this memory emphasis as to why chess960 (FRC) is desirable. To me the bigger joy of chess960 is the variety, and the lack of opening repetition.
Yesterday Sept 13 in Mexico (in that so-called world championship tournament) all 4 games were drawn. Worse, every one of them had a look of sameness or familiarity in its positions during the opening phase (we have been seeing these same basic opening positions for decades). When I see chess960 games the openings are such a breath of fresh air. I think the opening principles for chess960 are a little different than for traditional "chess1".

, and let the creativity and strategy rise from the very first move.

Yes.

Many people that love chess but has scarce time for studying opening theory (or even to play it!)

Perception is reality, and so is misperception. This need for memorization is a misperception, but it does deter or de-motivate many adults from reentering the realm of tournament chess.
Chess960 would remove this de-motivating factor.[/quote]

I like Fischer Random chess become more popular.

Then visit http://www.ChessTigers.de/ and click "chess960" links. Grandmaster chess960 games are available at links like...

http://www.chesstigers.de/ccm7_index_ne ... ng=0&kat=0

Or search Amazon.com (or Amazon.co.uk and so on) for "chess960".
.

[Ritch]

Yes Gene, variety and motivation for casual players (even for spectators, since the FR games of top GM's are more interesting IMHO) are two big qualities of FRC.

Thank you for the links. I know there are many options online, but OTB FRC tournaments are very few (or nothing), at least in my country.

(Sorry for my bad English)

[Ken Tait]

I tend to agree with most of the comments above. I gave up playing club chess a little over 20 years ago, although never gave up the love for the game. Sometimes I think about going back to chess club, but I really cannot be bothered studying opening lines all over again. If you are not up to speed with opening theory then you are going to find yourself in a worse position, if not on the chess board than for no other reason you find yourself in the early middle game with much less time left on the clock.

I have thought about making the effort and learning an off beat opening system, like the Grob, but then I am sure you still end up with a worse position if the opposition plays only fairly well. If lots of clubs started playing Fisher Random as the norm, I might just be tempted back again.

I think I would enjoy playing again where opening principles are more important than memorised lines.

[SusanPolgar]

If there are major Fischer Random events, I would love to participate. I would fully support it. But I have no urge to go back to competitive regular chess. Been there, done that. Chess is no longer chess when theories are now getting to 30-40 deep.

Best wishes,

[Ken Tait]

If there are major Fischer Random events, I would love to participate. I would fully support it.

Susan, if there were major Fisher Random events, do you think the players would need more time, back to 40/150, or do you think it should stay at 40/120?

[Mendrys]

As a casual player I can say that I have not and probably never will make a determined effort to memorize opening lines. I would enjoy playing 960 though. It is chess after all. However, I DO enjoy knowing and applying the opening theory that I have learned. Classic chess will always be my favorite. I believe that at my level (1700 or so) that trying to memorize opening lines would end up being a detriment. Few games at my level stay in "book" for very long and tactics quickly become the deciding factor.

Does anyone think that the Chess960@home project has any chance of providing interesting theory to Chess960? For those who don't know this is a project along the lines of SETI@home where many different computers are crunching positions to develop a base of theory. The project URL is: http://www.chess960athome.org/alpha/

[irishspy]

I think Chess960 is a great idea, if only because it opens the game to so many possibilities. Think about: the classical starting position is just one possibility. With Chess960, the field becomes much bigger. I wonder how various positions affect the general tenets of the game, such as controlling the center? And I wonder if some positions are, by their very nature, bad for Black -- that is, worse than the usual disadvantage Black has from moving second.

--Anthony

[GeneM]

I wonder how various positions affect the general tenets of the game, such as controlling the center?

Great question. I am convinced the opening principles of traditional chess1 are not as good a fit to many chess960 setups.
On one forum when I expressed that opinion it was quickly misrepresented and lambasted. The tyranny of tradition can close the mind.

I wonder if some positions are, by their very nature, bad for Black -- that is, worse than the usual disadvantage Black has from moving second.

It would be a statistical fluke unless -- some chess960 setups give White a smaller advantage over Black than does the chess1 setup, while other chess960 setups give White a bigger advantage than does chess1.

In chess1 the opening variety is large in some ways because it is chess, yet in other ways there is too little variety. I feel the chess1 opening variety is narrow to the point that the "you split, I choose" (YSIC) rule would constrain chess1 too much. But chess960 can easily tolerate the YSIC rule.
The first player moves, then the second player chooses which color pieces he wants to play as. White's UNFAIR advantage evaporates.
.

[GeneM]

.

I would enjoy playing 960 though. It is chess after all.

Yes, a core truth. Unlike bughouse or gothic etc, chess960 is just chess. That becomes apparent so fast while playing chess960 that it is almost a let down: you are hyped up for something new, and a few minutes later you forget you are playing anything other than traditional chess1.

However, I DO enjoy knowing and applying the opening theory that I have learned.

Both chess960 and traditional chess have good aspects that the other cannot fully match.

Does anyone think that the Chess960@home project has any chance of providing interesting theory to Chess960? ... many different computers are crunching positions to develop a base of [opening] theory.

I believe this could be very interesting, IF the crunching is limited to just one well-chosen initial setup. For now we need depth within one chess960 setup, not breadth across multiple setups.

Every chess960 setup has its own as-yet undiscovered universe of cool openings. I would love to see what Modern Chess Openings looks like for perhaps RQKN-RBBN.

Plus, for comparison we would need to see a similar crunch results for the traditional chess setup (aka chess960 S#518), with all opening book databases turned off of course. The comparison of opening "theories" between chess1 and one other chess960 setup could provide rich philosophical fodder for a John Watson follow-up to his award winning philosophical chess book "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy" about so many chess principles. Watson loves the chess opening phase.

Very recently I read a grandmaster saying that chess engines like Rybka are now so strong that they can get the better of many grandmasters by the end of the opening phase even if the engine is denied its opening book database. If true (or true in a few years from now), then the Chess960@Home project is realistic.

Chess960's openings are the last vast area of chess knowledge unexplored by grandmaster authors.
.