| |
Main
Date: 17 Oct 2005 00:24:32
From: Major Cat
Subject: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
Web site
http://fischer-random-chess.wikiverse.org/
is one of the better ones around when it comes to explain-
ing what "Chess960" is all about.
Here is an excerpt:
"This particular chess variant has a number of different
names. The first names applied to it include "Fischer Ran-
dom Chess" and "Fischerandom Chess".
Hans-Walter Schmitt (chairman of the Frankfurt Chess Tigers
e.V.) is an advocate of this chess variant, and he started
a brainstorming process to choose a new name for it. The new
name had to obey the following requirements on the parts of
some leading grandmasters:
# It should not use parts of the name of any Grandmaster
colleague.
# It should not include negatively biased or "spongy"
elements like "random" or "freestyle".
# It should be understood worldwide.
This effort culminated in the name "Chess960", deriving from
the number of different initial positions."
Another excerpt reads:
"At this time the terms "Fischer Random Chess" or
"Fischerandom Chess" are more common. It is not yet clear
if these other, newer terms, or yet another one will replace
it."
I am of the humble opinion that the moniker "Chess960" is a
definite improvement. However, for the life of me, I cannot
fathom the desire to adopt the rather inflationary number
960. Half of "Chess960" is a "mirror" of the other half and
as such enjoys no independent analytical significance. I
have been able to locate just one reference to "Chess480" on
the Internet. I believe that the latter moniker is way more
reasonable and certainly less...pompous!:} At a minimum, its
adoption would lead to the obvious requirement that the Ks
be placed somewhere on the good ol'...K-side. Since the op-
posite side will not necessarily be the Q-side, perhaps the
term "O-side" will stick!:}
Any thoughts?
Major Cat
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2005 13:11:57
From: Tord Kallqvist Romstad
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
Major Cat <[email protected] > writes:
> I am of the humble opinion that the moniker "Chess960" is a
> definite improvement.
My own humble opinion is that both names are roughly equally stupid.
> However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the desire to adopt the
> rather inflationary number 960. Half of "Chess960" is a "mirror" of
> the other half and as such enjoys no independent analytical
> significance.
This is just plain wrong. All 960 positions are different from an
analytical point of view. Any position is different from its mirrored
position, because of the difference between long and short castling.
When castling long, the king ends up three squares from the edge of
the board, and when castling short, it ends up just two squares from
the edge.
As a simple example, consider the initial position where white's back
rank is (Bishop, Bishop, Knight, Knight, Rook, King, Rook, Queen). In
this position, 1. O-O is a legal first move for white. Now look at
the mirrored position, where white's back rank is (Queen, Rook, King,
Rook, Knight, Knight, Bishop, Bishop). Obviously white cannot castle
at the first move, which means that the position is clearly
fundamentally different from its mirror image.
--
Tord Romstad
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2005 10:35:27
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:
>
> Major Cat <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I am of the humble opinion that the moniker "Chess960" is a
> > definite improvement.
>
> My own humble opinion is that both names are roughly equally stupid.
Fair enough; as of yesterday, I do not really care about
Chess960! :)
>
> > However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the desire to adopt the
> > rather inflationary number 960. Half of "Chess960" is a "mirror" of
> > the other half and as such enjoys no independent analytical
> > significance.
>
> This is just plain wrong. All 960 positions are different from an
> analytical point of view. Any position is different from its mirrored
> position, because of the difference between long and short castling.
> When castling long, the king ends up three squares from the edge of
> the board, and when castling short, it ends up just two squares from
> the edge.
>
> As a simple example, consider the initial position where white's back
> rank is (Bishop, Bishop, Knight, Knight, Rook, King, Rook, Queen). In
> this position, 1. O-O is a legal first move for white. Now look at
> the mirrored position, where white's back rank is (Queen, Rook, King,
> Rook, Knight, Knight, Bishop, Bishop). Obviously white cannot castle
> at the first move, which means that the position is clearly
> fundamentally different from its mirror image.
>
Thank you for the timely enlightenment. I was not aware of
the gory details of castling under Chess960. It seems to me
that Chess960 is a castling rulebook accompanied by "chess"
as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I would ever play
this contrived monster!!
> --
> Tord Romstad
Major Cat
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2005 17:07:05
From: John Rowland
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I was not aware of
> the gory details of castling under Chess960.
> It seems to me that Chess960 is a castling
> rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I
> would ever play this contrived monster!!
How about Chess 1920, in which the bishops go on opposing colours, and the
King can not go between the two rooks, and there is no castling at all?
Since both players are effectively castled already, it removes one bit of
predictability and tedium from the beginning of the game, and it also
prevents one of the starting positions from being the standard one for which
so much theory is known.
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2005 15:43:28
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
John Rowland wrote:
>
> "Major Cat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I was not aware of
> > the gory details of castling under Chess960.
> > It seems to me that Chess960 is a castling
> > rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> > as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I
> > would ever play this contrived monster!!
>
> How about Chess 1920, in which the bishops go on opposing colours, and the
> King can not go between the two rooks, and there is no castling at all?
> Since both players are effectively castled already, it removes one bit of
> predictability and tedium from the beginning of the game, and it also
> prevents one of the starting positions from being the standard one for which
> so much theory is known.
Is there any hard copy or electronic literature on
this variant?
>
> --
> John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Major Cat
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2005 04:40:56
From: John Rowland
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
"Major Cat" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John Rowland wrote:
> > "Major Cat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I was not aware of
> > > the gory details of castling under Chess960.
> > > It seems to me that Chess960 is a castling
> > > rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> > > as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I
> > > would ever play this contrived monster!!
> >
> > How about Chess 1920, in which the bishops go on
> > opposing colours, and the King can not go between
> > the two rooks, and there is no castling at all?
> > Since both players are effectively castled already,
> > it removes one bit of predictability and tedium from
> > the beginning of the game, and it also prevents one
> > of the starting positions from being the standard one
> > for which so much theory is known.
>
> Is there any hard copy or electronic
> literature on this variant?
I just made this variant up, although it's such an obvious variant that
there may be prior literature on it. What literature were you hoping for?
Isn't the whole point of random chess that there should be no literature?
--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/7069/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2005 01:57:48
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
John Rowland wrote:
>
> "Major Cat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > John Rowland wrote:
> > > "Major Cat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > I was not aware of
> > > > the gory details of castling under Chess960.
> > > > It seems to me that Chess960 is a castling
> > > > rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> > > > as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I
> > > > would ever play this contrived monster!!
> > >
> > > How about Chess 1920, in which the bishops go on
> > > opposing colours, and the King can not go between
> > > the two rooks, and there is no castling at all?
> > > Since both players are effectively castled already,
> > > it removes one bit of predictability and tedium from
> > > the beginning of the game, and it also prevents one
> > > of the starting positions from being the standard one
> > > for which so much theory is known.
> >
> > Is there any hard copy or electronic
> > literature on this variant?
>
> I just made this variant up, although it's such an obvious variant that
> there may be prior literature on it. What literature were you hoping for?
> Isn't the whole point of random chess that there should be no literature?
I apologise if I mislead you in regards to my interests
in this matter. You see, I am much more in tune with, say,
Kramnik, who seems to be of the opinion that not every "wild"
starting array be an acceptable candidate for play. Or, with
Kasparov, who proposed that the chess playing public focus
on just one starting array per year.
For me, the issue is _not_ to kill opening theory but, rather,
to _re-direct_ its thrust. Hence, my Chess18 focus. Chess18 is
a "happy" subset of both Chess960 and Chess480 supersets. Thank-
fully, its very definition skirts Mr. Fischer's complicated
castling rules as well the aesthetic preferences of those who
insist on playing "mirror" variants possessing no independent
logical/analytical significance.
>
> --
> John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Major Cat
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2005 16:50:54
From: Raimund Klein
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
Major Cat schrieb:
> Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:
>
>
>>Major Cat <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the desire to adopt the
>>>rather inflationary number 960. Half of "Chess960" is a "mirror" of
>>>the other half and as such enjoys no independent analytical
>>>significance.
>
>
>>This is just plain wrong. All 960 positions are different from an
>>analytical point of view. Any position is different from its mirrored
>>position, because of the difference between long and short castling.
>>When castling long, the king ends up three squares from the edge of
>>the board, and when castling short, it ends up just two squares from
>>the edge.
>>
>>As a simple example, consider the initial position where white's back
>>rank is (Bishop, Bishop, Knight, Knight, Rook, King, Rook, Queen). In
>>this position, 1. O-O is a legal first move for white. Now look at
>>the mirrored position, where white's back rank is (Queen, Rook, King,
>>Rook, Knight, Knight, Bishop, Bishop). Obviously white cannot castle
>>at the first move, which means that the position is clearly
>>fundamentally different from its mirror image.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for the timely enlightenment. I was not aware of
> the gory details of castling under Chess960. It seems to me
> that Chess960 is a castling rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I would ever play
> this contrived monster!!
There seem to be quite different opinions about this. I remember reading
somewhere that castling in 960 is only legal if by chance the king and
the rook are placed at the "normal" squares in the initial position.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2005 11:12:09
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Chess480 is less...pompous!
|
Raimund Klein wrote:
>
> Major Cat schrieb:
> > Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Major Cat <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the desire to adopt the
> >>>rather inflationary number 960. Half of "Chess960" is a "mirror" of
> >>>the other half and as such enjoys no independent analytical
> >>>significance.
> >
> >
> >>This is just plain wrong. All 960 positions are different from an
> >>analytical point of view. Any position is different from its mirrored
> >>position, because of the difference between long and short castling.
> >>When castling long, the king ends up three squares from the edge of
> >>the board, and when castling short, it ends up just two squares from
> >>the edge.
> >>
> >>As a simple example, consider the initial position where white's back
> >>rank is (Bishop, Bishop, Knight, Knight, Rook, King, Rook, Queen). In
> >>this position, 1. O-O is a legal first move for white. Now look at
> >>the mirrored position, where white's back rank is (Queen, Rook, King,
> >>Rook, Knight, Knight, Bishop, Bishop). Obviously white cannot castle
> >>at the first move, which means that the position is clearly
> >>fundamentally different from its mirror image.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Thank you for the timely enlightenment. I was not aware of
> > the gory details of castling under Chess960. It seems to me
> > that Chess960 is a castling rulebook accompanied by "chess"
> > as a...footnote! :} There is no way that I would ever play
> > this contrived monster!!
>
> There seem to be quite different opinions about this. I remember reading
> somewhere that castling in 960 is only legal if by chance the king and
> the rook are placed at the "normal" squares in the initial position.
This is very interesting. In fact, it coincides with what
is going on under Chess18, my personal favourite...:}
Chess18 is a subset of Mr. Lewis' Chess480 where the two
Rooks and the King are placed on their FIDE squares. FIDE
Chess is a subset of Chess18.
Major Cat
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2005 22:03:20
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Fischer Random Chess
|
Get over it: Bobby is the first proponent of the game.
Just like incremental play in chess is derived from the "Fischer Clock."
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2005 10:53:57
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Fischer Random Chess
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> Get over it: Bobby is the first proponent of the game.
"Bobby"? I presume you are talking about the venerable
Mr. Fischer. If I remember correctly, this gentleman revived
Capablanca's earlier proposals regarding chess variants that
presumably would render FIDE Chess opening theory obsolete.
In fact, for a long time, Mr. Fischer did not even insist on
white/black starting array symmetry, much like Capablanca...
I would be delighted to see his name associated with the
contrived castling rules of Chess960. In fact, these rules
_deserve_ to be called the Fischer Castling Rules, yes, of
none other but the one and only one Fischer Random Chess!
Major Cat
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2005 04:39:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Fischer Random Chess
|
> I would be delighted to see his name associated with the
> contrived castling rules of Chess960. In fact, these rules
> _deserve_ to be called the Fischer Castling Rules, yes, of
> none other but the one and only one Fischer Random Chess!
Castling in Fischer Random is just plain weird.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2005 02:24:54
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Fischer Random Chess
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > I would be delighted to see his name associated with the
> > contrived castling rules of Chess960. In fact, these rules
> > _deserve_ to be called the Fischer Castling Rules, yes, of
> > none other but the one and only one Fischer Random Chess!
>
> Castling in Fischer Random is just plain weird.
Just for clarification, I would like to state that
I have no axe to grind against Mr. Fischer. In fact,
the _evolution_ of his thinking regarding Baseline
Chess has been more than welcome by me. Yes, he did
start out as a maximalist chess revolutionary (like
Capablanca). However, he has been gravitating towards
a minimalist chess change platform for some time now.
Now, here is what I found on the Internet the other
day:
"how come they didn't like to use fischer name ... bit
weird .. fischer himself says that only a certain number
of the positions should be used, and it isn't that many,
under 20 i think i remember him saying .. so their name
is stupid i reckon, if it ever become the standard chess
for the world, which i highly doubt, the inventor thinks
most of the start positions should not be used."
If there is any truth to the above quote, I would _love_
to hear more about it from Mr. Fischer or some other
person in the know. For all we know, the "weirdness" of
Mr. Fischer's castling rules may be rendered harmless
or irrelevant if the "20 or so positions" are the "right"
ones (e.g., Chess18) ! 8 >)
Major Cat
|
|
