Chess politics - Chess480 is less...pompous!

Author

Chess480 is less...pompous!

Major Cat

2005-10-17, 2:31 am

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

Tord Kallqvist Romstad

2005-10-17, 7:31 pm

Major Cat <epikuros@istar.ca> writes:

quote:

> 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.

quote:

> 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

Major Cat

2005-10-19, 7:35 pm

Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:

quote:

>
> Major Cat <epikuros@istar.ca> writes:
>
>

quote:

> My own humble opinion is that both names are roughly equally stupid.

Fair enough; as of yesterday, I do not really care about
Chess960!

quote:

>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> 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!!

quote:

> --
> Tord Romstad

Major Cat

Raimund Klein

2005-10-19, 7:35 pm

Major Cat schrieb:

quote:

> Tord Kallqvist Romstad wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

Major Cat

2005-10-19, 7:35 pm

Raimund Klein wrote:

quote:

>
> Major Cat schrieb:
>
> 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

John Rowland

2005-10-20, 7:32 pm

"Major Cat" <epikuros@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:435683DF.725A@istar.ca...

quote:

>
> 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/Acr...069/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

Major Cat

2005-10-20, 7:32 pm

John Rowland wrote:

quote:

>
> "Major Cat" <epikuros@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:435683DF.725A@istar.ca...
>
> 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?

quote:

>
> --
> John Rowland - Spamtrapped

Major Cat

John Rowland

2005-10-21, 2:31 am

"Major Cat" <epikuros@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:43581D90.5C02@istar.ca...

quote:

> John Rowland wrote:
>
> 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/Acr...069/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

Major Cat

2005-10-21, 2:31 am

John Rowland wrote:

quote:

>
> "Major Cat" <epikuros@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:43581D90.5C02@istar.ca...
>
> 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.

quote:

>
> --
> John Rowland - Spamtrapped

Major Cat