Bsrti-invert might be the best setup

See https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/a-radical-proposal-about-the-set-up?page=1&newCommentCount=1#comment-69207353 , please.

@Radon you are a load of rubbish.

You are one of the strongest enemies of Omatomix with a loud voice and no will to adapt.

But I haven't heard real arguments from you. The only thing I hear from you is that it's boring and you call other arguments rubbish.

Bring real arguments or just shut up.

I tell you this as a friend and not as the rival I like to play on screen. 
This discussion is important to me and I want it to be held on a factual level. 

Cheers Michael

It isn't about adapting, I have already shown I can crush the set up in FFA I just dislike it extremely. What you also do not see is the pages upon pages of discussion that is had in the background between myself, the admins and chess.com staff regarding all of this so forgive me if I'm not always able to type all this every time. 

Putting aside our on screen rivalry, as my friend I would hope you're aware of the various issues that I have with stuff like typing and writing etc (pain wise) hence why I cannot just spew out full argument after argument.

LazImp is 100% correct in all what he said. And it's a BIG CONCERN, because this game and this hobby will only live with active and strong players, and with MUCH less games of decent level the 4p chess is dying, no other words. It is urgent to rectify what has to be.

How do you know this?

@jessezafirakos

Because they let the Engines analyze it: Link

It was analyzed for teams, so it might be different for FFA, but there are for sure parallels.

By its nature, FFA is different from Teams.  Obvious, I know, but you really can't draw much (if any) parallels from Teams to FFA.  Also, while I'm at it: Evaluation is only one factor that needs to be considered in choosing a position.  Enjoyability, which often originates from opening variety and imbalance, is also quite important.  Those are things that ultimately aren't quantifiable.

Well in the opening FFA and Teams has some similarities. And the setup matters mostly for the opening, so you can draw some parallels between Teams and FFA for this cause.

Still, you are of course right Enjoyability is more important than what the Engine evaluation says. 

But I think equal chances for each side brings more Enjoyability and I personally enjoy Omatomix much more than old Standard.

After a certain amount of reconsideration and analysis, I may conclude that bsrti-invert (RG king swap) is the most varied and definitely the most intriguing setup there is, offering a great opening variety for all the players and a lot of highly complicated and deep lines just like the old standard and BY setup, any player can play KQ pawn and get away with it, there are lots of endgame oriented openings and opening bishop diagonals is not so easy without weakening yourself in an exchange for initiative or some other advantage.

Plus, RG setup is evaluated by the engines to be one of the most balanced setups, second most balanced of the symmetric ones according to phoenix and the most balanced symmetric one according to TeamTerminator.

And of course, just like BY switch, it saves all the sound openings from old standard.

I don't think one can play the queen pawn as blue in BY, I mean, sure you can, if you wanna lose the game. I disagree with the fact BY has a great opening variety for BG, I don't see it differentiating too much from the Omatamix, but even being slightly worse. I find the setup confusing and BG being stuck with some boring opening lines that are actually forced, because there's no other way to parry RY let alone seeking for the advantage. Maybe you can realize that after some more testing (where it doesn't include moving the queen pawn) It's No. 8 on the list, Omatamix is 6 while bsrti-invert is 4. Also there's no reason to play the queen pawn, same with Omatamix...

this deserves a different name, we can't call it bsrti-invert. 

We can call it Ocean 

BabYagun suggested just writing the side of the King.
I gave them some names, but you can always just use the 4-letter-form:

1. LRRR - Red-invert
2. RRLR - Yellow-invert
3. LLRL- Yellow
4. LLRR - Bsrti-invert
5. LLLL - Omatamix-invert 
6. RRRR- Omatamix
7. RLLR - Bsrti2
8. RRLL - Bsrti
9. RRRL - Green-invert
10. LLLR - Green
11. RLRR - Blue-invert
12. LRLL - Blue
13. RLLL - Red
14. LRRL - Bsrti2-invert
15. LRLR - Old Standard-invert
16. RLRL - Old Standard

Old Standard is the only standard in terms of "every king is on a light square" so it's more natural this one to be called standard or old standard because Omatamix is light square, dark square, light square, dark square and it doesn't look natural and it really stands out, not because it's in order and every king being on the right, but being a variant of some kind, also queens are looking into enemy kings on the diagonals. Too bad that it doesn't fit when you look at the board actually...How to set up Omatamix or any other setup? It could be with the simple king square location as well, since we already have the table pic. Saying 8. RRLL you don't know what that setup is, you just know how to set it up. We need to name them

This an opening I tested extensively, and BG can perfectly play for an advantage in queen's pawn for blue, that's a pretty solid opening albeit a very theoretical opening with a lot of traps for BG.

I saw that you were testing red queen's pawn 2 squares up , blue queen's pawn 2 squares up...I'm just saying that red just doesn't really push the queen pawn 2 squares up or moving the queen pawn at all on move 1

@At_d0sA_fNLt_Laris

Old Standard has all Kings on light squares, so What? In normal chess Kings also stand on different colors. I don't see your Argument here...

8. RRLL is bsrti for someone who hears this the first time how to set it up is probably the better information than how it is called...
To talk about a Setup a Name is helpful of course because a combination of Rs and Ls could easily be mixed up. So I think it is good to have both and to have a table where they are listed.

And to all tho think Omatamix is a boring setup that leads to the same games again and again:
I played 4 games against @Cha_ChaRealsmooth @rojitto and @Grathieben yesterday. The strongest players in the world. And to me, each game was totally different. So of the strongest players playing games against each other having totally different games, why do you have the same games again and again, if you play against different people?

Maybe it's You, not the setup.

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4

@empty_k3, since the merge, there's been a greater than 50% drop of active players playing the game. There are very few openings available with Omatamix since all Queens are lined up diagonally at the Kings.

New setup + SFA has been a recipe for disaster, add in the server lags and disconnects, and it's no wonder why there are fewer games being played today than ever before.

We must address the fact that the current changes have driven players away. 

Yes, you are right. Changes have driven players away, and Changes will always drive players away. Maybe it was not wise to make all changes at once, but in order to make the game better, you sometimes have to make changes.

The server lags in addition to the changes are very unfortunate because that drives even more players away. 

So neither SFA nor Omatamix is the problem. It's just a lot of change at once and some server lags in addition.