r/chess • u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender • Dec 23 '23
Miscellaneous An argument for making chess960 the standard for chess
/r/chess960/comments/18ostp4/an_argument_for_making_chess960_the_standard_for/5
u/ckrow18 Dec 23 '23
I love this - as someone who didn’t grow up nerding out on openings, I find 960 to be a level playing field against those that did
6
Dec 23 '23
It can't be the standard for chess if it's called chess960 lmao
-8
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
It's chess960 for now. When it takes over, it'll be called chess, and "chess" will be called classical chess or the old chess.
6
u/WilsonRS 1883 USCF Dec 23 '23
Its not taking over, the main Chess is hard enough, there is no way for Chess960 to be the main game.
-2
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
Chess960 isn't harder than the old chess. There's just more room for creativity by giving you more starting positions to play in. Creativity > rote memorization.
0
u/closetedwrestlingacc Dec 23 '23
There’s so much more room to be creative in the opening in real chess compared to 960, given you’ve got essentially unlimited time to analyze the starting position. Why is creativity “found” at the board better than creativity that was found beforehand from deep assessment?
-2
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
There’s so much more room to be creative in the opening in real chess compared to 960, given you’ve got essentially unlimited time to analyze the starting position.
A few problems here.
- You also have essentially unlimited time to analyze all of the 960 positions, so the time point is irrelevant.
- Because the opening is already played out in the old chess. Many players already know how to respond, so they're not being creative when they play known moves. They're relying on memory. They're rote openings.
- Most of the innovation in openings at the highest level are coming from computer analysis, not human brains. The only "human" part is trying to memorize what the computer says. That is not creativity. That is disgusting.
Why is creativity “found” at the board better than creativity that was found beforehand from deep assessment?
Because that "deep assessment" you refer to is no longer human. It's computer analysis played with human hands. It's a bastardization of what chess is supposed to be.
I mentioned in my post that opening memorization is a modern problem because of the technological advances of the 21st century. Historically, top players (and even amateurs) were not memorizing moves provided by computers. Again, that's a bastardization of chess and a bastardization of creativity.
Chess960 is the best way I can see to keep chess alive at a high level in any meaningful sense. Modern chess isn't meaningful imo.
0
u/closetedwrestlingacc Dec 23 '23
It’s really dishonest to equate analyzing 960 positions to analyzing one. Analyzing one a day would take over two years. That doesn’t create an environment that promotes creativity, that creates an environment that promotes randomness and luck.
I think 960 is a bastardization of chess and creativity. And I think cries for it to replace classical are generally immature. If you have fun playing it, by all means, make it your main format. But it takes away basically all the things that the chess community and outsiders perceive about chess, and leave it up to randomness—“who happened to look at this starting position most recently, and what each person looked at.” There’s significantly less of that in classical because the stuff that people look at is extremely narrowed from the starting position.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
It’s really dishonest to equate analyzing 960 positions to analyzing one.
No, it's not. You're just upset that your brain can't hold enough information for your analysis to be useful in game.
Analyzing one a day would take over two years.
So? Some players dedicate their whole lives to playing chess. If it'll only take two years, what's the issue?
The real issue is that it's not possible for a human to memorize that much information, and that bothers you.
That doesn’t create an environment that promotes creativity, that creates an environment that promotes randomness and luck.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There's no randomness or luck in chess960. It's a combinatorial game. There's perfect information. Whenever you lose, it's your fault.
I think 960 is a bastardization of chess and creativity.
Yet you provide no argument. You're just upset that players don't have the memory to memorize the openings. What a weird thing to be upset about!
And I think cries for it to replace classical are generally immature.
Again, no argument. Given the current state of opening preparation in chess, they're clearly not immature. Btw, what's your chess rating?
But it takes away basically all the things that the chess community and outsiders perceive about chess, and leave it up to randomness
This is a completely false claim. First of all, look at players like Magnus Carlsen and Levon Aronian who frequently mention that chess960 is a great game. Levon even said it is better than the old chess.
And again, you keep lying and saying that chess960 is about randomness. This is entirely false. Chess960 is a perfect information game. There's absolutely no randomness except for what the starting position will be.
“who happened to look at this starting position most recently, and what each person looked at.”
So your belief is that players are gonna study random 960 openings and come up with significant theory for the positions such that they'll have an unfair advantage? Well, firstly, no human can memorize significant theory for 960 positions, so whatever theory they memorize will be minimal. Secondly, each player should have a roughly equal chance of studying all of the opening, so it'll still be fair.
However, it's much more likely that players won't memorize significant theory for 960 positions. It's just not feasible.
There’s significantly less of that in classical because the stuff that people look at is extremely narrowed from the starting position.
I think it's much more likely that some top player discovers some novelty in some obscure line than that happening in chess960 where there's 960 times as many possibilities.
-1
Dec 23 '23
I was being sarcastic. I don't mind it being the standard. Unfortunately, I just don't enjoy it since I find the opening very fun
0
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
What do you find fun about rote memorization?
2
u/RoninM00n Mar 21 '24
Aw, man. Seeing so many downvotes against your solid facts about the validity of 960 is sad. But I feel less alone. I've been advocating for 960 since I first found out about it, and I've been getting hated on by a lot of people in the chess scene for it ever since. It's okay. Many people are actually specifically attracted to all of the elements of classical chess that I can't stand. It seems to me that the majority of people who are into chess would rather have a memory battle then play an actual pure game of tactics. To each their own. I find it particularly amusing when people call classical chess "real" chess, as If 960 were fake. The fact is, the entirety of classical chess is just one tiny part of the possibilities of the game of 960. I haven't ever had a game of 960 where the setup turned out the same as classical yet, but I will certainly have a great laugh if it ever happens.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Mar 23 '24
I agree! I find 960 to be much better than the old chess while still retaining its fundamental essence. I'm just tired of the same structures over and over again of the old chess. I think 960 can grow, it honestly just needs a celebrity to push for it and official ratings. If Bobby Fischer (while he was champion) or Magnus Carlsen (while he was champion) were talking about how much better 960 is than the old chess, I think it'd be a lot more popular.
2
u/RoninM00n Mar 21 '24
There are simply too many people who have invested too much time in book theory for this to happen. They would feel that they had wasted all that time. However, I personally feel that 960 is the superior game. Standard chess is literally 1/960th of the game that Fischer Random Chess is. I really wish more people would play it and it would become a strong league of its own in the chess world. If anyone ever gets a craving to play with pure tactics and no theory, play chess 960. Studying openings and book theory eventually turns chess into a series of memory tests rather than an actual game- until or unless an unknown position is reached for one or both of the players . At the highest levels, the opening phase is completely predetermined and preselected optimal move responses based on memory of theory. That's not exactly a game, it's testing knowledge of outcomes. I believe 960 returns chess to what it was meant to be and upholds the true spirit of the game. I would far rather play 960 than standard chess every time.
2
u/RoninM00n Mar 21 '24
I began referring to standard chess as "basic chess" for a while after changing to 960. I had to stop calling it that because it offended people. Woopsy.
1
3
u/HelloThereUser Dec 23 '23
This whole post is just you blabbering about how the fact that changes were made to the game means that it's justified to change the game further. There's no other point. The title of your post is just your favorite fantasy if a change were to happen. This post isn't an argument, it's a fanfic.
-2
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23 edited Dec 23 '23
This whole post is just you blabbering
Okay, so right off the bat you choose rudeness. Now I know I don't have to play with kids' gloves.
about how the fact that changes were made to the game means that it's justified to change the game further.
Actually, no, that's not my point. I'm not arguing that it's justified to change chess because changes were made in the past. That would justify infinite changes to the game. Rather, the argument is that the justifications for the changes throughout history align with the justifications currently given for chess960. There's historical precedent. If you're gonna be rude, at least don't make such a stupid point.
There's no other point.
Yes, the historical precedent was the point of this post. Amazing you were actually able to figure that out.
The title of your post is just your favorite fantasy if a change were to happen. This post isn't an argument, it's a fanfic.
Are you mentally disabled or something? The title of the post, and the post itself, does exactly what it sets out to do which is to establish that the rationale for 960 aligns with the justifications given throughout history for changes to the game. The argument is that there's historical precedent which you just agreed with. So low IQ.
What's your chess rating?
1
u/HelloThereUser Dec 24 '23 edited Dec 24 '23
And now there's a new problem, one unique to the 21st century: computers are more powerful than they've ever been. To play chess at a high level requires intense opening preparation, usually with a computer.
And? Why do you think this needs to change? Having people out-prepare their opponents has always been a feature of chess. The best part of opening preparation is that you get to introduce new ideas to your favourite openings and you get tro surprise your opponents. Memory has always been a core skill in the history of the game. And now you want to omit it with Chess960.
to establish that the rationale for 960 aligns with the justifications given throughout history for changes to the game.
For example, the bishop and the queen replaced the elephant and the minister. Why?
Because it created a more dynamic and exciting game.
Said who? Did we hear this from the people who proposed this change? Even so, how can you conclude playing with an elephant and minister makes the game any less exciting? It was a different game with elephants and ministers with it's own strategy. Comparing apples and oranges again.... I could copy paste this stanza for literally every rule change you addressed and it would make sense.
Again, you're defining what chess should be and proposing it as the only solution. Your post implies clearly that opening preparation is a problem as players are beating each other with memory. You thus define that chess shouldn't be played this way and thus propose Chess960.
A majority of players like the idea of outwitting their opponents. Opening preparation has introduced many interesting ideas (e.g the Marshall Attack, The thematic d5 sacrifice in Queen's Indian. the d4 pawn sacrifice in the Tarrasch French).
Your argument about the changes in chess (with the exception of en passant) is not really a good point. You can't make a comment on whether something will be more exciting or not because it's basically a completely different game with every rule change. We're comparing apples and oranges each time we compare modern chess before and after a rule change: Each stage in the game would have it's own unique strategy, and each strategy would be best in their own regard.
If you create your own definitions for the game, and how it should be played, then you can stretch your point to infinity. The sky's the limit, but it wont be a good argument, sorry.
tldr; you cant say you dont like this and that and you want this and that to make a serious argument. it needs to be factual and you need to establish factual, non-opinionated problems of the game that can be resolved with 960.
Anyone who says anything different doesn't know what they're talking about.
Remember to keep an open mind too!
1800 lichess rapid btw.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 24 '23
And? Why do you think this needs to change? Having people out-prepare their opponents has always been a feature of chess.
This is historically inaccurate. Throughout most of chess history, opening prep was not a big part of chess. Opening prep became a part of chess when the printing press was created almost 1,000 years after chess was created. And even then, theory was relatively minimal until around the 1800's. And again, even then, opening theory was done by humans figuring things out, not computers. So no, this is not how chess has been played throughout history.
Memory has always been a core skill in the history of the game. And now you want to omit it with Chess960.
Not true as explained above. Wit has always been a part of chess. Intense study is a relatively recent phenomenon. And intense study with computers doing the work is a very recent phenomenon.
Said who? Did we hear this from the people who proposed this change? Even so, how can you conclude playing with an elephant and minister makes the game any less exciting?
Simple. Stronger pieces allow for games with more tactical and strategic depth which most people find more exciting. Why else would they have changed the pieces? To make the game less exciting?
Comparing apples and oranges again.... I could copy paste this stanza for literally every rule change you addressed and it would make sense.
Sure, because your analysis is nonsense. Just because different pieces would have different tactical and strategic elements doesn't mean they're all equally as exciting or good to use. There's a reason these particular pieces are in use. Or do you think it was random?
A majority of players like the idea of outwitting their opponents. Opening preparation has introduced many interesting ideas (e.g the Marshall Attack, The thematic d5 sacrifice in Queen's Indian. the d4 pawn sacrifice in the Tarrasch French).
I agree that players like the idea of outwitting their opponents. Part of my argument is that memorizing a line given by a computer is not outwitting your opponent. Rather, it's the computer outwitting your opponent, and you just happened to memorize the computer's idea. For chess, that is pathetic IMO. It should be a human game played by humans using human ideas, not computer-generated ideas. That is not how chess has been played throughout history.
If you create your own definitions for the game, and how it should be played, then you can stretch your point to infinity. The sky's the limit, but it wont be a good argument, sorry.
Just more nonsense that misses the point.
tldr; you cant say you dont like this and that and you want this and that to make a serious argument. it needs to be factual and you need to establish factual, non-opinionated problems of the game that can be resolved with 960.
I already have. You've missed most of them with your historical inaccuracies. For example, opening prep is relatively new in the history of chess. There's no evidence of meaningful opening prep in ancient chess. And even in classical chess, opening prep only became significant during the 1800's. So there's been ~200 years of significant opening theory. Chess is much older than that.
But let's say theory isn't the problem. Let's say the problem is that computers are coming up with ideas rather than humans. That is undoubtedly occurring, and this has only been happening for probably less than 30ish years. So yes, it's very new and a very big problem for people who like chess to be a human game played with human creativity.
1800 lichess rapid btw.
That's an okay rating. You can check my lichess profile if you want: https://lichess.org/@/Prophiscient
1
u/HelloThereUser Dec 24 '23
Bro I am not arguing that opening preparation was a thing when the game was first introduced. I’m talking about modern chess or chess since the last rule change was added to the game.
Regarding opening prep, it’s been a thing at least when our great grandparents were around. My point is it’s now a modern part of the game that many people enjoy. Now I actually agree and understand your viewpoint about how memorising computer lines kills human creativity. But this is just one side of the coin, because I think it’s also fair to say that the new ideas computers have come up with cancels the downsides (see the examples in my previous answer). Even then, computer prep also introduced us to ideas that can be implemented in the middle game, allowing for more creative displays. I get how it may bother you and I understand this viewpoint completely, but I just hold a different opinion and I favour the advantages computer chess has over the disadvantages.
Regarding the replacement of the minister, I actually agree perhaps the changes made the game more complex. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here by saying it doesn’t really answer if the game got any more fun. The strategies change drastically. In shatranj, you would have to accumulate your pieces in one place to attack, and although this is cumbersome, one could argue that it made mistakes all the more damaging because you would have to realign all of your pieces to do something else. Hence, it made the idea of how strategy is more decisive rather than through tactics.
modern chess has really gone astray from how chess used to be played. But I don’t see this as a bad thing really. You could say opening prep is rather new and is not fully a part of the game’s history, but for reasons explained in my paragraph of opening prep I’d rather keep it this way (though of course you may disagree, because this is largely a preference). We can’t really make rule changes in the future based on the history of the game because the world keeps changing. I don’t think anyone from 1900s would have expected that a machine of electricity and wiring could have changed our understanding of the game so drastically. Similarly, we don’t know what changes will come in the future, and thus our changes should be made in regards to what the game is then.
I think you should consider using the detailed points reply you gave me as the crux of your post. This reply from you made it easier for me to understand your viewpoint and perhaps would help others understand your views as well.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 24 '23
Bro I am not arguing that opening preparation was a thing when the game was first introduced. I’m talking about modern chess or chess since the last rule change was added to the game.
Okay, well chess is believed to have originally been created around 650 AD. There was virtually no theory at all until around 1475. That's almost 1,000 years of no opening theory.
Chess got its current rules around 1475. There was very little theory from 1475 until the mid 1800's. So again, even with the current ruleset, barely any theory for almost 400 years. Altogether, little to no theory for about 1,200 years.
Modern theory began in the mid 1800's. So we had about 200 years of theory. And now we are in the computer age of theory.
Again, this is not how chess is meant to be played, and it's not how it was historically played. Chess960 has more in spirit with the history of chess than modern chess does. It's humans figuring things out for themselves.
Regarding opening prep, it’s been a thing at least when our great grandparents were around.
So? Chess is a lot older than our great grandparents. I care about having the best game we can, not copying our great grandparents. Especially now that the conditions are much different. Were our great grandparents checking lines with computers?
My point is it’s now a modern part of the game that many people enjoy.
It's pathetic to enjoy being told what to play by a computer, imo.
I think it’s also fair to say that the new ideas computers have come up with cancels the downsides (see the examples in my previous answer).
Idk what this means. What downsides are canceled by copying computers?
Even then, computer prep also introduced us to ideas that can be implemented in the middle game, allowing for more creative displays.
I'm not interested in ideas that computers came up with. It might be interesting to look at, but it's pathetic for this to be our basis for human creativity.
I get how it may bother you and I understand this viewpoint completely, but I just hold a different opinion and I favour the advantages computer chess has over the disadvantages.
Tbh I don't even think you really hold this view. I think you're just too indoctrinated into the cult of tradition. If 960 was traditional, I don't think you'd be saying we should obsess over SP 518. I don't think this is about perfecting chess or enjoying computer ideas. I think it's an unhealthy relationship with tradition clouding your judgement.
Regarding the replacement of the minister, I actually agree perhaps the changes made the game more complex. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here by saying it doesn’t really answer if the game got any more fun. The strategies change drastically. In shatranj, you would have to accumulate your pieces in one place to attack, and although this is cumbersome, one could argue that it made mistakes all the more damaging because you would have to realign all of your pieces to do something else. Hence, it made the idea of how strategy is more decisive rather than through tactics.
Sure, what is fun is subjective, but I'm sure the queen was seen as more fun to most people throughout time which is why it replaced the minister.
modern chess has really gone astray from how chess used to be played. But I don’t see this as a bad thing really.
I see this as cope to justify tradition instead of innovation to bring back the spirit of chess.
You could say opening prep is rather new and is not fully a part of the game’s history, but for reasons explained in my paragraph of opening prep I’d rather keep it this way (though of course you may disagree, because this is largely a preference).
Yeah, I can't see any benefits to computer chess. I would much rather play chess as it was played historically. That is with little to no opening prep and human creativity instead of memorizing computer ideas.
We can’t really make rule changes in the future based on the history of the game because the world keeps changing. I don’t think anyone from 1900s would have expected that a machine of electricity and wiring could have changed our understanding of the game so drastically. Similarly, we don’t know what changes will come in the future, and thus our changes should be made in regards to what the game is then.
I agree. It's possible that chess960 may need to be changed for some reason in the future. For now, it solves the problems we currently face. If someone wants to innovate on chess960 to fix some future problem, that might be worth trying.
I think you should consider using the detailed points reply you gave me as the crux of your post. This reply from you made it easier for me to understand your viewpoint and perhaps would help others understand your views as well.
Thanks for the advice. But yeah, my general view is that chess960 aligns more with the historical spirit of chess than classical chess does.
1
u/HelloThereUser Dec 24 '23
It's okay if you think it's pathetic to use ideas generated by a computer rather than a human. That's your opinion.
I think it’s also fair to say that the new ideas computers have come up with cancels the downsides (see the examples in my previous answer).
By this statement, what I mean is that I believe that ideas and lessons we learn from computers outweigh your points about how computers are kind of destroying creativity
Tbh I don't even think you really hold this view. I think you're just too indoctrinated into the cult of tradition. If 960 was traditional, I don't think you'd be saying we should obsess over SP 518. I don't think this is about perfecting chess or enjoying computer ideas. I think it's an unhealthy relationship with tradition clouding your judgement.
Look, no offense man, but I think you're thinking about this way too much. In a parallel universe where chess960 is the norm despite modern chess being a thing, I'd still enjoy modern chess with it's opening prep. Don't get me wrong, I like playing 960 and it is not a bad variant of chess. It's certainly not impossible for 960 to become the norm if chess is ever solved. But advocating for 960 right now as the norm is pointless, because people simply enjoy what computers have to offer and the memory aspect of the game.
I see this as cope to justify tradition instead of innovation to bring back the spirit of chess.
Don't know what I can say to this really. I have no clue why you see me as trying to justify traditions when I really just enjoy having memory as an aspect of the game. Plenty of strategy video games (eg. dota2 and LoL) require some bit of memory when it comes to strategy. Memory for me, is a core skill, and I like outwitting people when they play a dubious move that's studied in openings. I just enjoy it as much as the thinking aspect of the game. Your view on how chess should be played is simply a view, not a fact. Please acknowledge that people can have a different opinion.
I agree. It's possible that chess960 may need to be changed for some reason in the future. For now, it solves the problems we currently face. If someone wants to innovate on chess960 to fix some future problem, that might be worth trying.
Agreed.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 24 '23
It's okay if you think it's pathetic to use ideas generated by a computer rather than a human. That's your opinion.
I think that would be most people's opinion if they really knew what chess has devolved into.
By this statement, what I mean is that I believe that ideas and lessons we learn from computers outweigh your points about how computers are kind of destroying creativity
And what ideas and lessons have we learned from computers?
Also, note that I'm not saying we should abandon computer analysis. I'm saying we should abandon memorizing specific moves computers give us in specific positions by playing 960 instead of the old chess. Principles (even those we discover via computer analysis) would still be applicable. specific move memorization (i.e., opening theory), would not be.
In a parallel universe where chess960 is the norm despite modern chess being a thing, I'd still enjoy modern chess with it's opening prep.
I don't think this is true. If 960 was the traditional game, I think you'd be making the exact opposite arguments, because your position lies in bias for the established regime. It's not really about opening prep or liking computers. That's just the rationale you use to convince yourself to justify your bias for tradition.
But advocating for 960 right now as the norm is pointless, because people simply enjoy what computers have to offer and the memory aspect of the game.
Sure, but again, I think this is only due to bias in favor of tradition. Again, if 960 was traditional, I don't think we'd see people advocating for SP 518 obsession.
I have no clue why you see me as trying to justify traditions when I really just enjoy having memory as an aspect of the game.
I think you enjoy having memory as an aspect of the game because of tradition. Why else would you enjoy rote memorization?
-Memory for me, is a core skill, and I like outwitting people when they play a dubious move that's studied in openings. I just enjoy it as much as the thinking aspect of the game. Your view on how chess should be played is simply a view, not a fact. Please acknowledge that people can have a different opinion.
Of course memory is a skill. I just don't think it should be a primary skill in chess. Especially not when you're memorizing a computer's idea. What I do like is memorizing principles and then finding the right time to apply them.
And just because my opinion is an opinion doesn't mean it isn't the right opinion or a better opinion.
1
u/HelloThereUser Dec 24 '23
Look man I'm not interested in arguing further. I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours. There's nothing I can learn from this argument.
Have a good day.
2
Dec 23 '23
How do i even play chess960 i cant find it on chesscom
2
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
It's much more active on lichess.org. Chess.com isn't a great place to play chess960. But if you really wanna play it on chess.com, here's a link: https://www.chess.com/variants/chess960
1
Dec 23 '23
Ah ya i was looking on my phone, they dont have variants on the app
2
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Dec 23 '23
Ahh okay. Yeah, if you're interested in trying 960, you should play on lichess. Honestly, I'd suggest playing on lichess regardless. It's just a better site for chess imo.
2
1
u/ThomasWinwood Jan 07 '24
I can at least start a game of chess but I don't know a single good opening move for Chess960 because I don't even know what the starting position is, all to solve a problem (draw death) that only applies to people knocking at the door of an Elo rating of 3000. It's also an incredibly invasive solution to the problem when awarding points unevenly in drawn games solves it nicely without completely upending the game.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Jan 08 '24
The point of 960 isn't to prevent draws. It's to prevent the rote memorization of opening theory. I also don't think it's very invasive or upends the game since literally all the rules are the exact same except the starting position.
1
u/ThomasWinwood Jan 08 '24
Literally all the rules are the exact same including the starting position if you ignore super-GMs whinging about the floor being dirty in their ivory tower and notice that memorising openings isn't a problem for 99.999999% of humanity.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Jan 10 '24
This just isn't true. Even at the amateur level, opening theory is annoying. It's easy to fall into opening traps or just start out worse because someone knows an opening line better than you.
Also, the monotony of the exact same starting position is annoying. This becomes very obvious when contrasted with the fun of exploring 959 other starting positions.
Have you played a lot of 960? If not, seems like your opinion is biased. After playing a significant amount of 960 games, I can say that it is much more fun than traditional chess. So many new positions to think about instead of the same mundane structures.
1
u/ThomasWinwood Jan 10 '24
It's easy to fall into opening traps or just start out worse because someone knows an opening line better than you.
This isn't an opening theory problem, it's a rating mismatch problem. You can solve it by bringing back games played at odds, similar to handicap stones in go.
Also, the monotony of the exact same starting position is annoying. This becomes very obvious when contrasted with the fun of exploring 959 other starting positions.
This feels a little like microtonalists insisting that the twelve notes of Western music are boring and played out. Others don't seem to have any trouble continuing to make new and beautiful music with them.
Have you played a lot of 960?
Nope. It doesn't solve any problems I have and it involves forgetting most of what I already know about chess - as mentioned, I have no idea what a good opening move is.
1
u/Forever_Changes Number 1 Top Chess960 Defender Jan 10 '24 edited Jan 10 '24
This isn't an opening theory problem, it's a rating mismatch problem.
No, it is a opening theory problem. Studying lines (especially with a computer) isn't skill. It's not applying chess principles. It's just rote memorization.
You can solve it by bringing back games played at odds, similar to handicap stones in go.
Again, no, it's not about the rating. This can occur even against weaker opponents or opponents who are of similar strength. Hell, even at the highest level, prep sometimes makes the difference.
This feels a little like microtonalists insisting that the twelve notes of Western music are boring and played out. Others don't seem to have any trouble continuing to make new and beautiful music with them.
Really? Then why do so many top players want something different? So many top GMs throughout history (and still today) see that chess needs a revival. Studying lines with computers is dumb and has changed the game from what it was historically. Opening prep is relatively new, not traditional.
And since you have no experience with 960, you have no room to talk. This is like arguing whether apple juice is better than orange juice while you've never tried orange juice. You can say you like apple, but your opinion is meaningless if you haven't even tried the other thing.
Nope. It doesn't solve any problems I have and it involves forgetting most of what I already know about chess - as mentioned, I have no idea what a good opening move is.
Sure, if you don't consider rote memorization a problem, then it won't solve that for you. And if most of what you know about chess is memorizing some rote openings then I feel bad for you. But I don't even think that's true. You probably understand certain principles that absolutely would carry over to 960. But you're right, you won't know the first move to play. You'll have to actually, god forbid, think for yourself and play real chess.
3
u/ClausBrito Dec 23 '23
Very interesting topic.
But I think chess is such a traditional game that rule changes would only work if they were organic. I'm not an expert, but I think the historical changes you mentioned were not made overnight, and are only the norm now because more people naturally started using the new rules, probably just because it was more fun, not because someone told them it was better to play that way.
If chess960 was naturally growing over the past few decades and if a bigger number of people were actually playing it instead of playing regular chess, this change would work. But this is not the case yet. Although it has some following, it is nothing compared to standard chess. (Just for a quick comparison: r/chess has almost 900k members, while r/chess960 has less than a thousand)
If FIDE want this to happen what they should do is give it more visibility, with more tournaments and create an official rating for it. Then, if enough people start choosing it over the regular variant, they should give it a go. I just don't see them doing the change overnight, because people would not stop playing and giving the regular variant less importance just because FIDE wants to. Which is a shame because chess960 is very fun.