I completely agree. Make chess less about memorizing lines, and more about intuitive understanding of how the pieces interact. It would make a lot of people learn faster, as well as weed out people who are just decent at rote memorization. My rating is honestly probably higher than it should be (I'm not good at all) because when I open up with non-standard openings my opponents have no idea what to do. They waste time thinking hard, because it's not one of their memorized openings I'm countering with. Then they lose on time, or make dumb mistakes because they don't have intuitive understanding of how the pieces interact.
@Prophiscient said in #9:
> Yeah, that wasn't the main argument of my post. The main argument of my post is that the arguments for changing the rules of chess to chess960 rules align with the justifications given throughout history for changing the rules of chess (to the rules that we currently play with today).
> You're claiming that this argument has been made elsewhere. Can you show me where? I never claimed I was the first person to argue that chess960 supports creativity or increases excitement in chess. Nice strawman.
You are being extremely defensive of your post. If you look back at my first post, I never made an argument or claim, but an observation. In addition, my observation was that Fischer himself "made elsewhere" the argument you said in your post, which I provided proper evidence of.
As a result, I cannot be making a strawman because I am not discrediting your points about chess960 itself, which you say are the focus of your post. I never say that chess960 is a bad variant, and the source I provided even supports it to a certain degree.
Finally, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is for you to be asking others to provide evidence for their arguments, yet you are not providing any yourself.
> Yeah, that wasn't the main argument of my post. The main argument of my post is that the arguments for changing the rules of chess to chess960 rules align with the justifications given throughout history for changing the rules of chess (to the rules that we currently play with today).
> You're claiming that this argument has been made elsewhere. Can you show me where? I never claimed I was the first person to argue that chess960 supports creativity or increases excitement in chess. Nice strawman.
You are being extremely defensive of your post. If you look back at my first post, I never made an argument or claim, but an observation. In addition, my observation was that Fischer himself "made elsewhere" the argument you said in your post, which I provided proper evidence of.
As a result, I cannot be making a strawman because I am not discrediting your points about chess960 itself, which you say are the focus of your post. I never say that chess960 is a bad variant, and the source I provided even supports it to a certain degree.
Finally, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is for you to be asking others to provide evidence for their arguments, yet you are not providing any yourself.
Also, chess960 seems more liberal than conservative to me since it is changing up an aspect of chess to become modernized.
Change and modernity are generally been associated with liberalism, rather than conservatism.
Change and modernity are generally been associated with liberalism, rather than conservatism.
@InkyDarkBird said in #12:
> If you look back at my first post, I never made an argument or claim, but an observation. In addition, my observation was that Fischer himself made the argument you said in your post, which I provided proper evidence of.
No, you're either being dishonest or not tracking. I'm saying that the reasons for changing the rules of chess to those of chess960 aligns with the justifications given throughout history for the various changes to the rules of chess.
You're claiming that Fischer made that argument? Okay, then just provide evidence that Fischer said that his reasons for wanting to change the rules of chess to those of chess960 are analogous/similar to the justifications given throughout history for the other changes to the rules of chess. You still haven't provided evidence for this claim.
> As a result, I cannot be making a strawman because I am not discrediting your points about chess960 itself, which you say are the focus of your post. I never say that chess960 is a bad variant, and the source I provided even supports it to a certain degree.
The strawman is that you're saying that I'm simply restating the arguments for chess960. However, that's not what I did in my post. What I did was show that the arguments for chess960 are analogous to the justifications given for other changes to the rules of chess throughout history.
If you wanna claim that Fischer said that, then that's fine. Just provide evidence for that claim.
> Finally, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is for you to be asking others to provide evidence for their arguments, yet you are not providing any yourself.
There's no hypocrisy. This is a particularly dumb point. You made a specific claim that is being challenged. I asked you to provide evidence that Fischer has made the argument that I'm making in my post (since you claimed my post is a restatement and not an argument when the argument I'm making is that the rationale for chess960 has historical precedent in other changes to the rules of chess).
If you can't provide evidence or you want to retract your claim, that's fine. But this damage control you're attempting isn't working.
> If you look back at my first post, I never made an argument or claim, but an observation. In addition, my observation was that Fischer himself made the argument you said in your post, which I provided proper evidence of.
No, you're either being dishonest or not tracking. I'm saying that the reasons for changing the rules of chess to those of chess960 aligns with the justifications given throughout history for the various changes to the rules of chess.
You're claiming that Fischer made that argument? Okay, then just provide evidence that Fischer said that his reasons for wanting to change the rules of chess to those of chess960 are analogous/similar to the justifications given throughout history for the other changes to the rules of chess. You still haven't provided evidence for this claim.
> As a result, I cannot be making a strawman because I am not discrediting your points about chess960 itself, which you say are the focus of your post. I never say that chess960 is a bad variant, and the source I provided even supports it to a certain degree.
The strawman is that you're saying that I'm simply restating the arguments for chess960. However, that's not what I did in my post. What I did was show that the arguments for chess960 are analogous to the justifications given for other changes to the rules of chess throughout history.
If you wanna claim that Fischer said that, then that's fine. Just provide evidence for that claim.
> Finally, I would like to point out how hypocritical it is for you to be asking others to provide evidence for their arguments, yet you are not providing any yourself.
There's no hypocrisy. This is a particularly dumb point. You made a specific claim that is being challenged. I asked you to provide evidence that Fischer has made the argument that I'm making in my post (since you claimed my post is a restatement and not an argument when the argument I'm making is that the rationale for chess960 has historical precedent in other changes to the rules of chess).
If you can't provide evidence or you want to retract your claim, that's fine. But this damage control you're attempting isn't working.
@Orphan_X said in #10:
> The theoretical side of chess has spanned centuries and is immensely interesting in itself. There's no way the majority of players would just switch over to 960. Even though I'm on the lower side of the intermediate level, the idea of losing all my study of opening theory would probably make me less interested in the game.
>
> I agree with Fischer's sentiment, the introduction of computers into chess has made it less interesting at the highest level and it has less of the romantic element. This has already happened with art, music, architecture and so on. Any kind of randomisation won't really change anything, that's my view anyway.
Sure, I get not abandoning classical chess entirely.
What do you mean that randomization wouldn't really change anything? It'd minimize theory, wouldn't it? And when we play 960, we'd have to rely on our critical thinking and not some prep given to us by a computer, right?
> The theoretical side of chess has spanned centuries and is immensely interesting in itself. There's no way the majority of players would just switch over to 960. Even though I'm on the lower side of the intermediate level, the idea of losing all my study of opening theory would probably make me less interested in the game.
>
> I agree with Fischer's sentiment, the introduction of computers into chess has made it less interesting at the highest level and it has less of the romantic element. This has already happened with art, music, architecture and so on. Any kind of randomisation won't really change anything, that's my view anyway.
Sure, I get not abandoning classical chess entirely.
What do you mean that randomization wouldn't really change anything? It'd minimize theory, wouldn't it? And when we play 960, we'd have to rely on our critical thinking and not some prep given to us by a computer, right?
@InkyDarkBird said in #13:
> Also, chess960 seems more liberal than conservative to me since it is changing up an aspect of chess to become modernized.
> Change and modernity are generally been associated with liberalism, rather than conservatism.
Right, it's more liberal than literally no change at all. The idea is that it's a very conservative change relative to how many problems it fixes. It's essentially a very simple and elegant solution that maintains the flavor of the old chess while fixing all of the problems with it.
> Also, chess960 seems more liberal than conservative to me since it is changing up an aspect of chess to become modernized.
> Change and modernity are generally been associated with liberalism, rather than conservatism.
Right, it's more liberal than literally no change at all. The idea is that it's a very conservative change relative to how many problems it fixes. It's essentially a very simple and elegant solution that maintains the flavor of the old chess while fixing all of the problems with it.
@Prophiscient brother, I'm not reading all that, but I want to say that @InkyDarkBird is right. You're coming across as defensive and insecure. This has nothing to do with arguments or proof, and everything to do with business, money, user ergonomics and so on. Is your plan to convince millions of players to like 960 using logic? That's not how liking something happens. Is your plan to do it by helping them see a different perspective? You're doing it wrong because you're coming across as unlikable and disturbed, so you're building a wall instead of a bridge. I don't see what your angle is.
Feel free to invest millions of dollars in funding your own 960 tournaments if you have the cash to spare, but if you're expecting it to happen on somebody else's dime, that's not how the world works. It's probably a good thing that you like 960 and are passionate about it, but I get the vibe that you'd be better off talking about how you feel about it with a therapist. Best of wishes with that.
Feel free to invest millions of dollars in funding your own 960 tournaments if you have the cash to spare, but if you're expecting it to happen on somebody else's dime, that's not how the world works. It's probably a good thing that you like 960 and are passionate about it, but I get the vibe that you'd be better off talking about how you feel about it with a therapist. Best of wishes with that.
@JuicyChickenNO1 said in #17:
> @Prophiscient brother, I'm not reading all that, but I want to say that @InkyDarkBird is right. You're coming across as defensive and insecure.
Okay, well that's not an argument. Idc how I come across to you tbh. If you have an argument, feel free to present one.
> This has nothing to do with arguments or proof,
With regard to his claim that I'm making a restatement and not an argument, it absolutely is a matter of proof.
> Is your plan to convince millions of players to like 960 using logic?
No. My plan is to convince the people reading the post that the justification for chess960 aligns with the historical justifications given for the rules changes in chess throughout history.
> That's not how liking something happens.
It partially is. People's minds can change based on new arguments and information.
> Is you plan to do it by helping them see a different perspective? You're doing it wrong because you're coming across as unlikable and disturbed, so you're building a wall instead of a bridge. I don't see what your angle is.
Again, you don't seem to realize that I couldn't give less of a shit what you think of me. Honestly, I'm not trying to convince people with your type of personality, because you come off as annoying and unlikeable to me.
> Feel free to invest millions of dollars in funding your own 960 tournaments if you have the cash to spare, but if you're expecting it to happen on somebody else's dime, that's not how the world works.
You could say this about literally anything. How unsubstantial. I would like to see interest in chess960 increase, yes. I don't expect that to happen solely based on my efforts.
> but I get the vibe that you'd be better off talking about how you feel about it with a therapist. Best of wishes with that.
Yeah, and I think you should get a life instead of making rude comments on a chess forum to someone who doesn't like you. Because, as I've said, you come off as very unlikeable.
> @Prophiscient brother, I'm not reading all that, but I want to say that @InkyDarkBird is right. You're coming across as defensive and insecure.
Okay, well that's not an argument. Idc how I come across to you tbh. If you have an argument, feel free to present one.
> This has nothing to do with arguments or proof,
With regard to his claim that I'm making a restatement and not an argument, it absolutely is a matter of proof.
> Is your plan to convince millions of players to like 960 using logic?
No. My plan is to convince the people reading the post that the justification for chess960 aligns with the historical justifications given for the rules changes in chess throughout history.
> That's not how liking something happens.
It partially is. People's minds can change based on new arguments and information.
> Is you plan to do it by helping them see a different perspective? You're doing it wrong because you're coming across as unlikable and disturbed, so you're building a wall instead of a bridge. I don't see what your angle is.
Again, you don't seem to realize that I couldn't give less of a shit what you think of me. Honestly, I'm not trying to convince people with your type of personality, because you come off as annoying and unlikeable to me.
> Feel free to invest millions of dollars in funding your own 960 tournaments if you have the cash to spare, but if you're expecting it to happen on somebody else's dime, that's not how the world works.
You could say this about literally anything. How unsubstantial. I would like to see interest in chess960 increase, yes. I don't expect that to happen solely based on my efforts.
> but I get the vibe that you'd be better off talking about how you feel about it with a therapist. Best of wishes with that.
Yeah, and I think you should get a life instead of making rude comments on a chess forum to someone who doesn't like you. Because, as I've said, you come off as very unlikeable.
Original text:
Been there, done that
I remember vividly when German organizer Hans-Walter Schmitt assisted by his friend, World champion Viswanathan Anand, promoted Bobby Fischer’s revolutionary idea vigorously 15 years ago. He founded an association, and the chess960 rules were included in the FIDE laws of chess. It was praised as “the chess of the future“. In this respect nothing spectacular has happened in the over-the-board world afterwards though, Random Chess remained a random occurrence. There were almost no tournaments, no clubs, no gossip. However, on online servers one can find a lower single-digit percentage floor amongst other random variants. Fresh attempts have been launched recently, even boosted by the current World champion including master clashes, publicity, and money. Yes, we all know that Magnus Carlsen is tired of our venerable ordinary chess unlike the vast majority of aficionados worldwide. Indeed, there are some fiery supporters of Fischer and his variant on every level, yet I have to disagree wholeheartedly with their missionary attitude.
Why is learning and repeating openings considered undesirable? Knowing endgames by heart is regarded as a sign of true mastery but apparently this does not apply to the very beginning of every game. Or is the ubiquitous fear of being outprepared at home to blame for? Most players like consistency and a scientific approach defying chance or luck, in fact they derive their joy exactly from that aspect. They have their own frequent openings cultivated during their entire lifetime thus resembling a personal religion. Feeling lost in the complexity they do not want to tidy up an accidental mess time-consumingly in every single game and steer into familiar paths at the next opportunity which constitutes the point of Fischer Chess actually. The driving force of improvement is both repetition as well as the collection of small chunks of knowledge in contrast to dealing with completely arbitrary stuff time and again. This weird castling business in Fischer Random is just another peculiar issue as well as possible biased setups. Is enabling castling a concession to normalize the position quicker to play our beloved conventional chess?
I do not think Fischer Random Chess will have a bright future since the regular game is still rich enough. There have been numerous attempts by fed up individuals to install various alterations, but the chess players will vote with their feet - as they have been doing already. My personal recommendation: if you are bored try out some new openings. It is so much fun!
Been there, done that
I remember vividly when German organizer Hans-Walter Schmitt assisted by his friend, World champion Viswanathan Anand, promoted Bobby Fischer’s revolutionary idea vigorously 15 years ago. He founded an association, and the chess960 rules were included in the FIDE laws of chess. It was praised as “the chess of the future“. In this respect nothing spectacular has happened in the over-the-board world afterwards though, Random Chess remained a random occurrence. There were almost no tournaments, no clubs, no gossip. However, on online servers one can find a lower single-digit percentage floor amongst other random variants. Fresh attempts have been launched recently, even boosted by the current World champion including master clashes, publicity, and money. Yes, we all know that Magnus Carlsen is tired of our venerable ordinary chess unlike the vast majority of aficionados worldwide. Indeed, there are some fiery supporters of Fischer and his variant on every level, yet I have to disagree wholeheartedly with their missionary attitude.
Why is learning and repeating openings considered undesirable? Knowing endgames by heart is regarded as a sign of true mastery but apparently this does not apply to the very beginning of every game. Or is the ubiquitous fear of being outprepared at home to blame for? Most players like consistency and a scientific approach defying chance or luck, in fact they derive their joy exactly from that aspect. They have their own frequent openings cultivated during their entire lifetime thus resembling a personal religion. Feeling lost in the complexity they do not want to tidy up an accidental mess time-consumingly in every single game and steer into familiar paths at the next opportunity which constitutes the point of Fischer Chess actually. The driving force of improvement is both repetition as well as the collection of small chunks of knowledge in contrast to dealing with completely arbitrary stuff time and again. This weird castling business in Fischer Random is just another peculiar issue as well as possible biased setups. Is enabling castling a concession to normalize the position quicker to play our beloved conventional chess?
I do not think Fischer Random Chess will have a bright future since the regular game is still rich enough. There have been numerous attempts by fed up individuals to install various alterations, but the chess players will vote with their feet - as they have been doing already. My personal recommendation: if you are bored try out some new openings. It is so much fun!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.