This is quite an interesting idea. I read through the detailed description and I thought the key line was "I liked [Benko's] Pre-Chess but when I played it with my friends, it wasn’t random enough, we were just trying to place as many pieces as we could to their natural positions (those from standard Chess)."
Any reason why you chose to randomise the positions of B/B/R rather than some other pieces? I think you might still get opening positions which favour one player (perhaps Bc1 Bf1 Bg8 Bh8 for example). What about making B/B/R mirror each other (or maybe just B/B) in order to avoid this? You would still get a huge number of possible opening arrangements.
I've played and enjoyed online correspondence games of Double Fischer Random, where both players have a different Fischer style randomisation. Games were usually played in pairs, but most of the time I was playing people significantly weaker or somewhat stronger than me, and so the better player usually won even if starting with a less favourable set up.
Fischer-Benko Chess (Half-Random Chess)
This is quite an interesting idea. I read through the detailed description and I thought the key line was "I liked [Benko's] Pre-Chess but when I played it with my friends, it wasn’t random enough, we were just trying to place as many pieces as we could to their natural positions (those from standard Chess)."
Any reason why you chose to randomise the positions of B/B/R rather than some other pieces? I think you might still get opening positions which favour one player (perhaps Bc1 Bf1 Bg8 Bh8 for example). What about making B/B/R mirror each other (or maybe just B/B) in order to avoid this? You would still get a huge number of possible opening arrangements.
I've played and enjoyed online correspondence games of Double Fischer Random, where both players have a different Fischer style randomisation. Games were usually played in pairs, but most of the time I was playing people significantly weaker or somewhat stronger than me, and so the better player usually won even if starting with a less favourable set up.
Hi Malcolm!
Thanks for your decent comment.
I invented this variant one year ago and since than, I've been testing it thoroughly. Originally, I wanted it to be literally half-random, meaning that four pieces should have been placed randomly and four manually. Having in mind that the positions of King and Queen are crucial for attack and defense, it was a logical choice to place them manually and most likely at the very end of manual placement. Also, if you don't place Bishops randomly, and they have to be on squares of different colors, it limits you very much in the stage of manual placement of pieces. So, originally, I wanted two Bishops, one Rook and one Knight to be placed randomly and the rest manually.
I also tested model with only two Bishops placed randomly once I realized that 4 randomly pieces are too much.
Another thing, Double Fischer Random Chess or Asymmetric Fisher Random Chess as I love to call it, is symmetric only in 1 out 960 cases, so I didn't want to bother with symmetry at all. It already exists in Chess960 and Standard Chess. I play Double Fischer Random Chess every morning and I don't remember that it has ever happened that the positions of two Bishops and one of the Rooks were symmetrical! It is possible of course, but just never happened. I use simple Chess960 position generator for this, but of course, separately for both sides.
Here are the conclusions after one year of testing this variant:
1.) Only 4 pieces placed manually, didn't provide enough freedom for players to get strong starting position for their pieces.
2.) Only 2 pieces placed randomly didn't provide enough randomness (the Rooks would almost always end up at their natural positions for example to protect pawns in files 'a' and 'h', but not only the Rooks but also Queen and King).
3.) If you don't place Bishops randomly at the very start, later you can experience a real nightmare trying to find free squares of certain colors for them.
4.) If you don't place at least one of the Rooks randomly, most likely both of them will end up at files 'a' and 'h' and is it really random enough in that case? However, it is still possible according to my rules of placement, to get both Rooks at their natural positions. Theoretically speaking, even symmetry (meaning some of Chess960 positions) is possible, even the standard Chess position.
Another thing, my goal was not to create a chess variant in which both players start from equally strong positions because it doesn't really happen in Chess960 and not even in Standard Chess. I simple wanted to provide equal chances for both players to get strongest possible positions choosing places for five of their pieces!
This way, like I proposed it in Fischer-Benko Chess (or Half-Random Chess), the better and smarter player can not possibly come into a weaker position after the setup of initial position of pieces is over. If manual placement of 5 pieces is not enough for a strong player to get into a good position before the game even started, the he or she is not really a stronger player, at least not in strategical thinking. The full responsibility for initial position is on players! And that is what makes my variant fair! Better players playing with black pieces, can even completely annihilate the advantage of White coming from his/her right to make a first move. Not only that, Black also has opportunity to reduce the advantage of White placing his last two pieces after White. This also improves the fairness of game.
It is really very difficult to find the best places for you pieces in the stage of their manual placement! I realized that, most likely, and although it is not demanded by the rules of Chess, you would like your Knights to start from squares of different colors too, just like Bishops. There are some other things that I noticed...
Finally, giving my variant name Fischer-Benko Chess, I wanted to pay respect to great masters and to put my humble name a way bellow theirs.
I've been promised that my variant will be soon playable on one site btw. I hope so. And even if it doesn't, I don't care. I am already playing it with my friends and older daughter.
If you choose to try it, I guarantee you this:
1.) Ficher-Benko Chess is very fun and playable. Try it with your friends and you'll see. All you need is a chessboard, pieces and a single die for random placement of Bishops and one Rook.
2.) It is highly unlikely for amateurs to play two similar games of this variant in one life because of 921,600 starting positions. You can't come to play this variant well prepared for any of the positions. You must rely on your chess intelligence, creativity and tactical skills only.
3.) The manual placement demands from players to think and calculate very deep and in a very different manner than during the game itself. It is a valuable experience.
4.) The better player would always get better starting position. Does it always happen in Chess960 and Standard Chess? And, don't we want better players to win?
5.) Playing with black pieces is no longer handicap as Black places his two last pieces after White.
This variant looks really cool and we would like to play it here but don't understand how to use one die in order to get positions for bishops and rook???
Thanks Daslov for such a detailed response to my questions. Please let us know here if your variant becomes playable online. I'll mention Fischer-Benko Chess on the forum of the Scheming Mind correspondence chess site (which is where I played Double Fischer Random). By the way, I think the chances of B/B/R being randomised on their normal squares (for just one player) must be 1 in 48 (4x4x3) - maybe you've encountered that once or twice?
Hi Felixx,
I recommend you to use one of these methods:
1.) Ingo Althofer's single die method. Check the link bellow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess_starting_position
2.) Random number generator.
3.) Or, you can use any of Chess960 generators for bishops and then cast a die for one Rook.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/fischerandom
Don't forget that positions are different for both players, meaning that you have to determine them separately for both sides. In 959 of 960 cases, the positions will be asymmetrical.
Thanks Daslov for such a detailed response to my questions. Please let us know here if your variant becomes playable online. I'll mention Fischer-Benko Chess on the forum of the Scheming Mind correspondence chess site (which is where I played Double Fischer Random). By the way, I think the chances of B/B/R being randomised on their normal squares (for just one player) must be 1 in 48 (4x4x3) - maybe you've encountered that once or twice?
Hi Malcolm,
Yes, it happened to me to get positions of two Bishops and one Rook at their natural places (those from Standard Chess) only not on both sides. Meaning that their positions were asymmetrical.
While I was testing variant with friends and family, once it has happened that my older daughter got her Bishops and one Rook on their standard positions so she just kept placing all her pieces on their natural positions. My starting position was entirely different of course, one of Fischer's 960 positions. :-)
Thank you in advance for sharing my variant. Like I said in article, I was just a moderator real inventors are in its name.
I have an idea how to play this game already online. Send me a private message and I'll explain it to you.
I prefer Benko chess as it is is easier to teach to a 5 year old...and we will have a fast universe of actual theory to develop. With that said this variant is cool and would be welcome.
This is quite an interesting idea. I read through the detailed description and I thought the key line was "I liked [Benko's] Pre-Chess but when I played it with my friends, it wasn’t random enough, we were just trying to place as many pieces as we could to their natural positions (those from standard Chess)."
Any reason why you chose to randomise the positions of B/B/R rather than some other pieces? I think you might still get opening positions which favour one player (perhaps Bc1 Bf1 Bg8 Bh8 for example). What about making B/B/R mirror each other (or maybe just B/B) in order to avoid this? You would still get a huge number of possible opening arrangements.
I've played and enjoyed online correspondence games of Double Fischer Random, where both players have a different Fischer style randomisation. Games were usually played in pairs, but most of the time I was playing people significantly weaker or somewhat stronger than me, and so the better player usually won even if starting with a less favourable set up.
Hi Malcolm!
Thanks for your decent comment.
I invented this variant one year ago and since than, I've been testing it thoroughly. Originally, I wanted it to be literally half-random, meaning that four pieces should have been placed randomly and four manually. Having in mind that the positions of King and Queen are crucial for attack and defense, it was a logical choice to place them manually and most likely at the very end of manual placement. Also, if you don't place Bishops randomly, and they have to be on squares of different colors, it limits you very much in the stage of manual placement of pieces. So, originally, I wanted two Bishops, one Rook and one Knight to be placed randomly and the rest manually.
I also tested model with only two Bishops placed randomly once I realized that 4 randomly pieces are too much.
Another thing, Double Fischer Random Chess or Asymmetric Fisher Random Chess as I love to call it, is symmetric only in 1 out 960 cases, so I didn't want to bother with symmetry at all. It already exists in Chess960 and Standard Chess. I play Double Fischer Random Chess every morning and I don't remember that it has ever happened that the positions of two Bishops and one of the Rooks were symmetrical! It is possible of course, but just never happened. I use simple Chess960 position generator for this, but of course, separately for both sides.
Here are the conclusions after one year of testing this variant:
1.) Only 4 pieces placed manually, didn't provide enough freedom for players to get strong starting position for their pieces.
2.) Only 2 pieces placed randomly didn't provide enough randomness (the Rooks would almost always end up at their natural positions for example to protect pawns in files 'a' and 'h', but not only the Rooks but also Queen and King).
3.) If you don't place Bishops randomly at the very start, later you can experience a real nightmare trying to find free squares of certain colors for them.
4.) If you don't place at least one of the Rooks randomly, most likely both of them will end up at files 'a' and 'h' and is it really random enough in that case? However, it is still possible according to my rules of placement, to get both Rooks at their natural positions. Theoretically speaking, even symmetry (meaning some of Chess960 positions) is possible, even the standard Chess position.
Another thing, my goal was not to create a chess variant in which both players start from equally strong positions because it doesn't really happen in Chess960 and not even in Standard Chess. I simple wanted to provide equal chances for both players to get strongest possible positions choosing places for five of their pieces!
This way, like I proposed it in Fischer-Benko Chess (or Half-Random Chess), the better and smarter player can not possibly come into a weaker position after the setup of initial position of pieces is over. If manual placement of 5 pieces is not enough for a strong player to get into a good position before the game even started, the he or she is not really a stronger player, at least not in strategical thinking. The full responsibility for initial position is on players! And that is what makes my variant fair! Better players playing with black pieces, can even completely annihilate the advantage of White coming from his/her right to make a first move. Not only that, Black also has opportunity to reduce the advantage of White placing his last two pieces after White. This also improves the fairness of game.
It is really very difficult to find the best places for you pieces in the stage of their manual placement! I realized that, most likely, and although it is not demanded by the rules of Chess, you would like your Knights to start from squares of different colors too, just like Bishops. There are some other things that I noticed...
Finally, giving my variant name Fischer-Benko Chess, I wanted to pay respect to great masters and to put my humble name a way bellow theirs.
I've been promised that my variant will be soon playable on one site btw. I hope so. And even if it doesn't, I don't care. I am already playing it with my friends and older daughter.
If you choose to try it, I guarantee you this:
1.) Ficher-Benko Chess is very fun and playable. Try it with your friends and you'll see. All you need is a chessboard, pieces and a single die for random placement of Bishops and one Rook.
2.) It is highly unlikely for amateurs to play two similar games of this variant in one life because of 921,600 starting positions. You can't come to play this variant well prepared for any of the positions. You must rely on your chess intelligence, creativity and tactical skills only.
3.) The manual placement demands from players to think and calculate very deep and in a very different manner than during the game itself. It is a valuable experience.
4.) The better player would always get better starting position. Does it always happen in Chess960 and Standard Chess? And, don't we want better players to win?
5.) Playing with black pieces is no longer handicap as Black places his two last pieces after White.
_________________________________
Hello, apologies for posting in an old thread but I found this researching Fischerandom and had a question since you seem to have done a great deal of thinking about the mechanics of randomly and player placed pieces.
Why is it that Fischer-Benko or any of the other variants cares about the degree of randomness in the first place, as long as the board's initial state is reached by consensus? If piece positions can be drafted (with limitations like bishops on opposite colors) by player intent on both sides, one side can elect to be a boring square and arrange pieces as normal in Classic Chess, but the other player can counter with a ready preperation against that board state which makes it detrimental for the boring player to choose to play that way. And it's their own fault, so the better player should still win. And because any inherent advantage is gained by strategy, no replays are necessary in a tournament (switching sides to account for black/white being stronger). I'm sure that a fully manual piece placement scheme is not original, so why is it not ever discussed as much as Fischerandom or other variants like Fischer-Benko? Is it not realistic to say there would always be a counter-setup for anything one could consider "meta" if it became mainstream to just place your own pieces?
Hello everyone!
There is a new interesting variant on Chess Variant Pages that I created:
https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/fischer-benko-chess
Fischer-Benko Chess (or Half-Random Chess)
Practically, it is Asymmetric Fischer Random Chess with 921,600 possible starting positions, but the way in which the chances of players to win are equalized is reasonable and fair. The players share responsibility for the initial position, and there is no one else to be blamed.
Although the number of possible starting positions is huge, the starting positions this way would be more 'friendly' and much more balanced than in Chess960, and there is no way any of the players could come well prepared for any of starting positions.
The name of this variant is also fair because it bears names of Fischer and Benko who argued bitterly about randomness and manual setup of starting positions. Fischer of course, believed in randomness while Pal Benko developed Pre-Chess in 1978.
This could be interesting because many people already play Asymmetric Fischer Random Chess against engines. Of course, it is suitable just for training because many of the positions, if not most of them, are unequal and favor one of the players.