A radical proposal / about the set-up

Amigos,

Over the last 2-3 weeks a lot of threads and discussions have been seen about the set-up. Some of the members (Hest for instance) have worked in-depth on the matter ; and I fully trust them when they say that the Old Set-up (that most of us know best and love!) is unbalanced, that Brsti or Brsti inverted or Omatamix are better, etc. Hence some fast changes and then back stage decisions to revert to Oma again, etc. Confusion and mess.

Anyway we need of course to have ONE UNIQUE FORMAT that is standard, I fully agree with Empty on this. In the same time, the criticism will always exist on what position is best and the discussions could be endless. And obviously a) the overall doubt on this is extremely harmful for the development of our beautiful game and b) to divide between 3, 4 or 10 ghettos with different positions and separate rooms would make the games even less numerous (I've tried to launch an Old Set-up game many times, never succeeded, the players simply don't see them because it's in a separate space, and most players haven't configured their Lobby in order to see all games available right now...).

Hence this radical and maybe interesting proposal. We have just ONE FFA, that is launched with unknown position in advance, it's determined WHEN IT'S CREATED, randomly. The positions of all queens and all kings ARE RANDOM. That could seem challenging, but I predict that it could add a lot of spice (especially in Blitz/Bullet where you'll have to determine very fast what's being played and open accordingly).

(It's not like with 960, Fisher chess; there are only 16 positions possible as only kings and queens shuffle).

What do you think on this one?

A king-queen shuffled four player chess would be fun

I believe this was proposed pre-merge, I am not sure who suggested it, though.

I personally believe it is a good idea, there will always be criticism saying that it will be confusing for new players, but does the starting position really matter? Many new players will play the same/similar openings regardless of the starting position, this is true even up to the 2300 level. For high level FFA, the opening will be more skill-based and less theory based, and the transition to the 3 player stage will often happen faster, which is undoubtedly a good thing. 

It is important that this change be the case for only FFA and not teams. In teams, the opening matters at all levels. So shuffling the position for new players is not a good idea in teams. 

Absolutely, I was meaning FFA/Solo only.

And in teams visibly many find that Oma is the best position.

I kinda like your idea, but I would limit it to 4 setups ( Old, New Standard, BSRTI, BSRTI-Invert), 16 setups is a lot to adjust to.

Teams players do not like Omatamix, FFA/Solo players do. 

Omatamix is really boring and limited in the opening because of all the forcing moves.  Do not under any circumstance make Omatamix the Teams Standard like it is now. 

I'd take Old Standard or BSRTI, only 20% want Omatamix for Teams. 

Has anybody actually throughly tested the Bsrti Setup? I haven't, so I have nothing to say about it, but it seems like a lot of people use what they see from the forums as their deciding factor.

@bsrti has extensively and has made some good points as to why this position is great.  

Here are some games we played with LazyImp and Misterwish, you can check out the Rematches.  https://www.chess.com/variants/bsrti-setup/game/26308748/0/2

Playing this position does feel more balanced, and there's a lot of potential.  What we like is that Old Theory isn't completely thrown out the window and can still be used, so it keeps a sense of familiarity.  

@Fiat147 has been analyzing, and came up with this, it still seems like RY have a considerable advantage if blue opens their King's pawn. 

The king's pawn openings, h11 and h12 in particular for yellow are actually pretty uncomfortable to play for yellow the most, most players, including myself are barely able to analyze them due to their complexity, yet we can draw some ideas. First of all, yellow is under an immediate checkmate threat due to the weakened diagonal, and well, green definitely did misplay the line in here. There are many ways to attempt to counter this line, most provied uncomfortable gameplay for all the sides, yet I wouldn't say for sure king's pawn is not sound for blue.

First of all, in my opinion, green should stick to one idea: either king's pawn, Nl6 with attacking red, or attacking yellow: mixing them doesn't work. I tested this rigorously and extensively to make sure it would be a double-edged sideline, but by no means a mainline, albeit I cannot be completely sure: a few months from analysis by me is still not enough to find all the lines, but I can say it for definitely RY do not have as advantageous of a position like in the non-h11/h12 lines.

For two months of testing, I didn't manage to find any breaking line for RY, but neither did I find any breaking line for BG.

I'm happy you like BSRTI. 

To say only 20% of players want the Omatamix setup for teams is probably inexact. Personnaly, I voted for BSRTI, but I am fine with both Omatamix and BSRTI. I'm certainly not alone in this situation. I don't see the point of returning to the MOST unbalanced position : the "Old Standard". 

People complain that Omatamix is boring, but guess what. For me a "boring" position is a largely unfair starting position in which red/yellow have a big advantage. Omatamix maybe more forcing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have rich ideas after the first few moves. Also, look at the "Old standard" and players were often ending playing some kind of similar or identical setup all the time too. Some players probably just feel good that they had a wider variety choice but ended up playing always the same thing anyway. Speaking of boring : to see a 5-0 win for red/yellow in a world championship match with Old Standard.

Now for Indipendenza idea, maybe it could be an idea in FFA. Not sure if people would like it. Usually, I think people wants some stability and a "routine". In team, I prefer to have a stable position for the openings development. But again, i'm not completely against the idea.

The nature of h12 is going to be that of a highly tactical, complex line.  I have analyzed the line a bit, and it's not looking too promising for bg as of yet.  Will post an update once I have a more certain judgement.

Just remember, no matter the position of the queen or king, fianchettoed bishops are usually one of the safest openings, then getting your knight out and castling. It is a more defensive opening and doesn't allow for an early pawn push, but it does fortify your king a great deal and allows for even more fortification.

In rating rating range are you playing?

> Hence this radical and maybe interesting proposal. We have just ONE FFA, that is launched with unknown position in advance, it's determined WHEN IT'S CREATED, randomly. The positions of all queens and all kings ARE RANDOM. That could seem challenging, but I predict that it could add a lot of spice (especially in Blitz/Bullet where you'll have to determine very fast what's being played and open accordingly).

This is really confusing, thus not going to happen. Players should not be forced to participate in this roulette. In theory a setting can be added for those who wants to participate. Or a 4PC variant with a random setup, again, for those who select it (opt in scheme, not opt out) and join that particular queue. Not for everyone.

Please remember that a minority of players wants to change the setup. If that minority wants to test different setups, they can do that. Right now. There are admins, CGA and streamers pushing this forward. They actively discuss this in Discord and here. They can create tournaments with any setups and promote those tournaments. I wrote in Discord that I can gift membership to the winners and I repeat it here. Go ahead! Play, compare, win prizes, gather stats and feedback. And then introduce the result to the community.

The devs don't block this initiative. The devs created a very flexible and unique application for you, guys. It has a ton of settings and features.

A minority who want to change the setup does not equal a majority who like the current setup.  Because, as you pointed out in another comment, most regular players (who would be in that majority) do not care about which setup is chosen.

Im sorry, are you saying a minority of players want to change the set up back? I would argue that the vast majority of players want anything but omatamix.

There is no minority. There are minorities.

At least these:

1. Bring the old setup back.
2. Oma is the best.
3. Bsrti is the best.
4. Inverted Bsrti is the best.
5. I don't care.

Are you going to please them all?

Please don't assume that if a majority doesn't care (at the moment) then a minority is allowed to do anything that the minority wants.

No, obviously not, especially when there is another minority who prefer the change or want a different change.  I just regard it as my responsibility to point out illogic and provide differing points of view.

First of all "change back" is not equal to "anything but ...".

Secondly, it is just an opinion.

There are thousands of players. They silently play. And there is a small group of players (that can be counted by someone having spare time for this task) asking for a change. That small group doesn't have a consensus. It has a few sub-groups (see above), and each sub-group has similar arguments.

The majority plays. The minority fights.

The silent majority of 1500? marks cannot be more important than those who dedicate countless hours to the craft though.

I would personally put this roulette as a variant, exclude BSRTI and keep only Old Standard, Omatamix, bsrtti-invert, every setup should get a letter S - Standard (old), O - Omatamix, B - BSRTI, Bi - bsrti-invert...so something like SOBi or SOB. Why not? cuz 960 already has this roulette. We have 16 setups, keep 1 as standard and split the other 15 into the 5 other groups of 3 setups or just mix all 15 together and it's completely random which one you'll end up getting, just like 960...