Chess 960. Love it? Or not really? - Chess Forums - Page 3

AngeloPardi

May 26, 2013

0

#41

The problem with playing competitive chess960 is that this introduce an element of luck : some starting positions will favor tactics, other will probably be very positionnal. Some might even be lost for one side from the start !

Irontiger

May 26, 2013

0

#42

AngeloPardi wrote:

The problem with playing competitive chess960 is that this introduce an element of luck : some starting positions will favor tactics, other will probably be very positionnal. Some might even be lost for one side from the start !

Yes, just like standard chess, incredible no ?

varelse1 wrote:

But now that I've tried 960 for a while, I'm not so sure. Okay, i'm shakey in the opening part, that much I expected. But I never realized how uncomfortable I would be in the middlegame as well. The middlegames I reach are completely unfamiliar. There is no sense of "been there, done that." The positions are almost an alien landscape.

Only as the endgame approaches, do things start to look familiar again.

I support this message.

ollave

May 26, 2013

0

#43

I like it, but don't love it. I try to play a few games; I find the openings very strange and as noted above the middle game positions can be "different". But it makes me _look_ at the board and the possibilities, and I find I look a little harder at less familiar moves in my regular games.

I suppose I'm using it like musical exercises: to maintain and improve my technique, not as an end in itself.

FM marljivi

May 26, 2013

0

#44

Patscher,I would like to tell you,that everything is relative.And what seems impossible at a certain moment,turns out to be completely possible.By the way-why is then ok if chess bullet games (1minute per player) are being played all the time? Isn't it better to play,let's say,10 minute game of chess960? Otherwise,I myself also enjoy in 3 minute chess960 games.(And I've also played 2 min chess960 games.) By the way-are you really so sure that all your moves in traditional live chess are so good and correct? I think that there are no real limits,nothing is absolute,everything is relative.

FM marljivi

May 26, 2013

0

#45

62 minutes ago · Quote · #41

AngeloPardi

"The problem with playing competitive chess960 is that this introduce an element of luck : some starting positions will favor tactics, other will probably be very positionnal. Some might even be lost for one side from the start !"

First of all,as already pointed out by Irontiger,it is possible that starting position in traditional chess is also lost for black-for now we simply cannot mathematicaly prove that it is a draw.But even if we say that it is a draw,and that some starting positions in chess960 are lost for black (which is not my belief;I believe that all should be draw,but never mind that,it's only my belief),I still don't see any problem here-we could have double-cycle tournaments,so that if you play with black a position,which is lost from move number 1,you will play in the next game the same position with white,against the same opponent,so you will be winning from move number 1.And actually-that is how we would have 8 or 10 games played by each player,so that everyone would be black just the same number of times as white.And in traditional chess tournaments there are usually 9 or 7 rounds,so that half of players get white pieces one more time than the other half of players...

FM marljivi

May 26, 2013

0

#46

AngeloPardi

The problem with playing competitive chess960 is that this introduce an element of luck : some starting positions will favor tactics, other will probably be very positionnal. Some might even be lost for one side from the start !

And in chess960 everybody would play the same starting position in every certain round,and in every next round we would play new starting position.As for "some starting positions will favor tactics,other will probably be very positional."-This could be already a relevant argument,BUT I have some things to say about it anyway.First of all,I don't really believe that any starting position could be specified that easily-I believe that every single one of them contains both-tactics and strategy.Even if you look at traditional chess games of Kasparov and Karpov,you get the feeling/impression that these two played completely different game.Not only in different style,but really different game.Or if you compare Tal and Botvinnik-the same impression comes.So,how could they all became world champions with such a completely different approach? Secondly,I believe that in chess960-at least on long terms-everybody would get equal opportunities to demonstrate their style in best way from move number 1.Thirdly,is the element of luck your one and only reason for not trying to play chess960? Fourthly,don't forget that in traditional chess-especially in computer era-there is also the element of luck.Pure luck,actually-if you get your opponent in computer-prepared variation,half of work has already been done.Due to this fact I actually see traditional chess nowadays as more gambling game than chess960.

rjb

May 26, 2013

0

#47

I'd love if I could play it in Live under 1-0 time controls. Sigh.

guitarzan

May 26, 2013

0

#48

For the way I play chess, 960 is great.

I love to play chess, but often don't have the uninterrupted stretches of time I'd like in order to be able to play a good game. So I play Online Chess (as opposed to Live Chess) almost exclusively. I am also a premium member here. This gives me access to a large database of master-level games on this site. When I encounter odd openings, I can refer to the databases for help in selecting a move. I learn something about different openings this way, and I also don't lose many games very quickly. Everybody wants to win after all. I know that some of my opponents also may play this same way.

BUT! When it comes to 960, that all gets thrown out the window! No databases for me or my opponent to refer to! We are reliant on our own chess skills alone right from move 1! I probably like it because it forces you to be more creative right from the start.

Shadowsoftime99

May 26, 2013

0

#49

Well, it's ok... Until you get a position with the queen on h1 and a bishop on a1! If I'm lucky and get a decent starting position that will let me get into a comfortable middle game (knights on f3 and c3, pawns in the center, decent pawn structure...), then I'm fine with it.

exmate

May 26, 2013

0

#50

Hate it...

varelse1

May 26, 2013

0

#51

marljivi wrote:

I haven't played much bughouse until now.Well,it is obviously some kind of fun-it is a team game.Obviously,in bughouse one needs a good partner if he wants to gain good result-if we take bughouse as a serious game.However,it seems to me that the question we are all asking ourselves is the following-is traditional chess,an individual game,still good enough,or does it need some improvements? I repeat-as an individual game? And in this aspect,the purpose of the invention of chess960 isn't just to have 960 times more fun,but also to have 960 times more space for creativity,for originality from move number 1-the game is also 960 times more healthy and charming.I give no credit to the victory of the game,which lasts,let's say,40 moves,and the first 20 moves had been prepared with computer,than the moves 21-30 had been a part of prepared general plan,which had probably also been merely worked out by computer,and then the last 10 moves were just convertion of the big advantage into a full point.I would really like to hear someone to explain to me the drawbacks of the chess960.Please,I am all ears.

Because in Standard Chess, I get to play exactly like Kasparov, for the first 12 moves!

*pouts*

netzach

May 26, 2013

0

#52

If you can play chess then you can play 960 without difficulty. I like it.

Irontiger

May 27, 2013

0

#53

netzach wrote:

If you can play chess then you can play 960 without difficulty. I like it.

Play, yes ; but play well ...?

SaharanKnight

May 27, 2013

0

#54

Patscher wrote:

Chess 960 can't be played live. You have to spend lots of time since the opening, so blitz 960 isn't good.

I think this would be generally true. Except for perhaps some very high-level players, if one doesn't have time to spend figuring out the opening, one will have a poor game technically -- usually worse than blitz games in standard chess.

So why don't we have a serious discussion here or in another forum about figuring out opening 960 play? I have been waiting for such a serious discussion for months and have tried to encourage that... but no takers!! (And to have a serious, meaningful discussion, one has to get into the details, sometimes with board examples of play.)

Irontiger

May 27, 2013

0

#55

SaharanKnight wrote:

Patscher wrote:

Chess 960 can't be played live. You have to spend lots of time since the opening, so blitz 960 isn't good.

I think this would be generally true. Except for perhaps some very high-level players, if one doesn't have time to spend figuring out the opening, one will have a poor game technically -- usually worse than blitz games in standard chess.

Well, just make the time controls longer. Double each. It should be more than enough.

varelse1

May 27, 2013

0

#56

Also white's clock should start before he makes his first move, as there is plenty to think about.

After a 5 or 10 second delay, of course.

netzach

May 27, 2013

0

#57

Irontiger wrote:

netzach wrote:

If you can play chess then you can play 960 without difficulty. I like it.

Play, yes ; but play well ...?

Op only asked if we liked it or not?

No stipulation that had to be 'good' chess-players only!:)

(Beside many of those tend to vanish at some point with a little red-icon next to their name says cynical me)

DazedKnight

May 27, 2013

0

#58

I have enough difficulty with regular chess.

Naakija

May 27, 2013

0

#59

Total Games:	25 (18 W/ 7 L / 0 D)

FM marljivi

May 27, 2013

0

#60

tjchessmaster

"Well, it's ok... Until you get a position with the queen on h1 and a bishop on a1! If I'm lucky and get a decent starting position that will let me get into a comfortable middle game (knights on f3 and c3, pawns in the center, decent pawn structure...), then I'm fine with it."

Concerning starting positions in chess960 with Qh1 and Ba1-objectively speaking,this is not like any sort of deficit in the position,since the same goes for the opponent (Qh8,Ba8). And especially I would like to remind you all about the starting positions with bishops in the corners-does it bother you,when someone makes a fianchetto of a bishop in a game of traditional chess...??