An argument for making chess960 the standard for chess

@StateYourPoint said in #70:
> It's also very possible to get a substantial advantage out of the opening in chess960.

Yes, but not with rote memorization.

> Most games are not decided by the opening.

So? Doesn't change that opening theory significantly affects the game. Even if the effect is that both players come out of the opening unscathed.

> You can also get diverse positions and structures in chess by playing different openings. If I wanted a hypermodern setup, I could play the KIA. If I wanted a quick, solid setup, I'd play the London system.

Sure, but the range of positions and structures is much less than that of 960.

> Fun is a subjective concept.

Sure. I think the average person would find the range of positions and structures in 960 more fun than classical chess. Especially if we got rid of the cultural bias in favor of classical chess.

> You have equal opportunity to get an opening you like. But I think this is a strawman. My point is that if you consider openings "dead", then endgames must be as well, no?

This isn't true. You don't have an equal opportunity to get an opening you like. In classical chess, all you get is SP 518. You're out of luck if you don't like that starting position.

And yeah, again, there's no way to avoid opening prep unless you prefer a dubious opening. It should be possible to avoid theory and not have to sacrifice an advantage in the opening by playing inferior moves.

And again, no. Endgames are fine because they are easily avoidable. If you don't like certain endgames, just avoid them by playing differently in the middle or endgame. When it comes to openings, you either play theory or accept a positional disadvantage if someone memorized more than you.

I think the boom is coming in 2024. I just can’t wait! Out of a sudden people will appreciate.

Thank you for those points, StateYourPoint.

Let's look at it:

@StateYourPoint said in #68:
> I've noticed that many chess960 "enthusiasts" argue that openings make standard chess dead. They don't! Not at the amateur level, anyway.

I agree. Most amateurs aren't going to make or break a game out of the opening.

However, if you have 2 people who are at the exact same OBJECTIVE skill level, as in they go an even 5-5 when playing ten 960 games, but one has been playing chess for 20 years and the other for 20 weeks...then it is a glaring admission...on it's face...that can't be denied...when they play the classical variant and the person with 20 years and 1000s of games under their belt wins 9 out of 10 games.

This is a serious point of information that can't be easily ignored, and it's implications are many and they are meaningful.

Opening theory is superfluous to chess and speaks nothing to a person's talent or ability to play chess.

Also, when I think of what can often stall people out of the game, it's got a great deal to do with the rigid nature of the classical variant, and the exercise of taking something that is not inherently scholastic or formulaic, and trying to pigeon-hole it into being that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that there is also a faction of people who find great purpose in the classical variant and studying it, and I'm sure that the GMs love having to pit their wares against others in a battle of trying to 'out-prepare' their opponents. I don't think that should change at all.

I think that the classical chess should continue, and that there should still be everything there is now, but 960 should also be common fare and should be understood as probably being the true litmus test of a skilled chess player.

> To repeat once again, simply memorizing won't do you any good! What will happen once your opponent deviates or you reach the end of the line? You will have to play by yourself.

Indeed. And I've seen this as often being the case in my games. It's not a secret that I'm often left fighting off the back foot out of the openings...and where I then claw my way back and outplay my opponents.

It really begs the question "Who's ACTUALLY better at playing chess and proving chess proficiency, chess understanding, and chess brilliance?"

So, why not just skip the middle man and line up the 960 ruleset and find out?

> A poster above me imagined the following scenario:
>
> This is simply impossible, for the sole reason that human memory CANNOT possibly store enough lines in order to prepare for anything. That's why chess is still rich enough!

You've misunderstood the argument I made. There are people who can flip through a dictionary and then tell you the first word on page 117.

This is quite similar to the capacity of GMs to be able to play games without a chess board...and then study the position afterwards...without - a - chess - board.

So, the argument that's being made is that that kind of a 'savant' ability is not intellectual and has nothing to do with what it means to understand the position and to then make a good chess move based on one's understanding and proficiency.

If someone is 2400 in classical and only 1400 in 960, then there is a big problem with that as it proves that they are extremely gifted in line prep, but can't actually play the game very well.

And, of the top 100 GMs, theoretically, there is probably going to be some in the classical variant bottom 50, who might be a top 10 in 960. And, those players could easily be argued to be some of the most brilliant chess players, and the kinds of ideas that they come up with in 960, right from move 1, would be a complete and total, enthralling, treat for the chess world to witness...and it would be a show of objective skill and objective mastery.

> I've already mentioned in a previous post that chess960 could certainly be interesting to watch at the top level. But for amateurs, I believe standard chess holds just enough richness to still be an interesting game.

I would tend to agree; however, you're still overlooking what 960 offers which the classical variant can't.
Either way, no need to choose. This really isn't an either-or proposition.

> I also don't understand: if you dislike openings so much, then you should hate endgames as well! Heck, we even have syzgy tables that basically solve any endgame with x amount of pieces.

You can't get around endgame theory, and it's unclear if one would really want to. Endgame theory is completely present and applicable in 960. All of the same rules apply and the vast majority of 960 endgames end up playing out just like a classical variant.

So, endgame theory is the same regardless of ruleset.

However, the same cannot be said for opening theory.

Again, there is a critical and clinical difference between the classical ruleset and the 960 ruleset, and the 960 ruleset reaches a spot that the classical ruleset can't reach, and it measures the core of 'what makes a good chess player' in a way that the classical ruleset can't measure.

@Sarg0n said in #72:
> I think the boom is coming in 2024. I just can’t wait! Out of a sudden people will appreciate.

* 960's due attention is exactly one Netflix special away. *

You can't play dodgeball with this point, Sarg0n.

If it's true that a Queen's Gambit Part II could fill the 960 lobby if it focused on all of the pros which that ruleset offers...then that is a very relevant and interesting point of information.

This is like the proposition's knight putting your opposition's king in check.
Now, you don't have to answer for it, but then the only thing left to do is to line up the pieces and start a new game.

This was Emanuel Lasker's point regarding the beauty and honesty of the chessboard in comparison to the dishonest human interactions outside of the 64 squares.

@Sarg0n said in #72:
> I think the boom is coming in 2024. I just can’t wait! Out of a sudden people will appreciate.

Why not have FIDE introduce ratings for 960 and see if it becomes more popular?

Also, more popular =/= better. It's just an appeal to popularity fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

@Onyx_Chess said in #73:
> Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that there is also a faction of people who find great purpose in the classical variant and studying it, and I'm sure that the GMs love having to pit their wares against others in a battle of trying to 'out-prepare' their opponents. I don't think that should change at all.
>
> I think that the classical chess should continue, and that there should still be everything there is now, but 960 should also be common fare and should be understood as probably being the true litmus test of a skilled chess player.

That's the idea! Classical variant (SP 518) and 960 evolving together, complementing each other!

@Prophiscient said in #63:
> The standard position is guaranteed to be included. Fischer Random/Chess960 necessarily includes starting position 518. SP 518 is excluded in some tournaments; however, that is a decision that is specific to those tournaments. The rules of chess960/Fischer Random clearly include SP 518.

Well, you are clearly wrong. I just wonder if you know this and intentionally misrepresenting reality or you are just a theoretician and never was involved in the actual tournament/match organization.

Many "Chess 960" or "Chess 9LX" tournaments explicitly exclude the standard position in their rules to avoid the crapshoot effect where uniform random selection could lead to the 1/960 chances of the game decided by the opening theory.

@kalafiorczyk said in #77:
> Well, you are clearly wrong. I just wonder if you know this and intentionally misrepresenting reality or you are just a theoretician and never was involved in the actual tournament/match organization.

I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Try rereading. The classical starting position (SP 518, it even has a number in chess960/Fischer Random) is a starting position that is necessarily part of the rules.

Some tournaments use rules that don't perfectly adhere to the official rules of chess960/Fischer Random, but the official rules always include SP 518. Obviously some tournaments don't.

The Wikipedia page for chess960/Fischer Random that corroborate this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

It's called chess960 because there are 960 possible starting positions. One of those is SP 518 which is the classical starting position.

Here's an actual article about the rules of Fischerandom from Bobby Fischer's own website:

"In F.R. Chess there are 960 possible starting positions, the Classical Chess starting position and 959 other starting positions."

web.archive.org/web/20071012151046/http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/list/p_20/20_0.htm

So yeah, some tournaments can deviate from the rules, but these are the OFFICIAL rules for chess960/Fischer Random Chess.

> Many "Chess 960" or "Chess 9LX" tournaments explicitly exclude the standard position in their rules to avoid the crapshoot effect where uniform random selection could lead to the 1/960 chances of the game decided by the opening theory.

Yeah, I know. Obviously. What I said is that that is a DEVIATION from the official rules of the game. The official rules always include SP 518 as a possible starting position.

@Prophiscient said in #78:
> Yeah, I know.
OK, thanks for clarifying.

With the supporters like you chess 960 doesn't need enemies. The intentional misrepresentation and misinformation how the game is really played now is more off-putting than e.g. minor strength differences in the starting positions.

@kalafiorczyk said in #79:
> OK, thanks for clarifying.

No problem :)

> With the supporters like you chess 960 doesn't need enemies.

Well that's what you get for saying things like, "Well, you are clearly wrong. I just wonder if you know this and intentionally misrepresenting reality or you are just a theoretician and never was involved in the actual tournament/match organization."

No, YOU are the one who is wrong. You misinterpreted what I wrote. There's a difference between the official rules of Chess960 and how some tournaments choose to play. In my ideal world, we play according to the official rules which will always include SP 518. I'm aware that many tournaments don't adhere to this.

> The intentional misrepresentation and misinformation how the game is really played now is more off-putting than e.g. minor strength differences in the starting positions.

And there you go lying and slandering again.

1. I never misrepresented or misinformed about how the game is played in some tournaments. I've acknowledged that many tournaments exclude SP 518.

2. What I did say is that excluding SP 518 in those tournaments goes against the official rules of Chess960.

So stop lying by saying I'm intentionally misrepresenting or providing misinformation about anything. It's YOU who is lying about what I've said due to your poor reading comprehension. Which is weird because anyone can go back and read what was written.