Best 1st moves in ALL 960 Fischer positions


Yigor, this analysis is a very good intellectual theoretical exercise and a pioneering analysis for chess960. ironically, the objective of 960 is to allow those with lesser backgrounds in opening theories to be able to play in equal footing with those who are studying theories. with yigor's studies, this makes 960 outdated or no longer serves its purpose.
Yigor, if the chessboard is asymmetrical, is it still possible to run an engine analysis? If not, then I think you can come up with Chess960Y to make certain that it is engine proof. I think, we can also apply this to regular chess online to avoid engine users/cheaters, but how?

Sollevy: The unique engine that I have is Sigma on my old Mac. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's not powerful, generally stalling at about 10 plies. So, I'm obliged to think myself in order to develop theoretical patterns. Have U seen the terminology in post #2? I also posted threads about Ruy Lopez, Trompowsky and other general patterns in this forum.

Sigma can run with any position having 1 white and 1 black king, no other restrictions. But, it is not programmed to make castlings in non-standard cases.

yes. i saw them. about making chess asymmetrical as a solution to online cheating to avoid engine analysis? is this possible?

yes. i saw them. about making chess asymmetrical as a solution to online cheating to avoid engine analysis? is this possible?
I don't think so. Normally, it's possible to load any legal position into a chess engine and run it. The only problem is with castlings.

how about making one random rook pawn immovable in an online game? would this be asymmetrical enough to cause errors in engine analysis?

how about making one random rook pawn immovable in an online game? would this be asymmetrical enough to cause errors in engine analysis?
Might be but LoL nobody will accept such a solution. It would handicap both honest players and cheaters.

yes but just one rook pawn selected by the computer upon start of the game just so engine help is no longer possible. the random selection of pawn is fair to both players because of the randomness. well, this is just an alternative that can be introduced online. of course, i like the traditional chess but if there is no way escaping the cheats online, i guess many players would rather prefer playing with one immobile pawn on the board rather than be faced most of the time with cheaters and lose. when there is no cheating, a real betting game with money involve becomes a possibility online.

i removed myself from the cheating forum. i don't know if i can still go back. i like discussions better when they are more about ideas or events and less about individuals and personalities, like your forum here.
Excellent thought Catyst yes you cannot prevent cheating but without the money reward incentive, the cheating aspect is much less a problem *except* that we still hold onto a perception of cheating whether it is real or not....
The problem is that people get confused about Chess960. They think that we are advocating it to solve cheating. But we are not. You cannot remove the cheating element ever (but without money reward it is not a big problem anyway).
We are advocating Chess960 because Chess960 encourages ways of thinking that are relevant to today's world that we actually live in (even beyond the chess world). We need a generation of kids that are encouraged to embrace unexpected complexities and that can make unfavourable situations much better. That is what Chess960 is good for because the starting positions are mostly sub-optimal and we try to think how to make them better. Chess960 is good for many other things as well that you can read about here if you want:
http://chess960jungle.blogspot.com/2011/06/chess960-time-of-change.html
Cheers
Harry
Other attributes you might want to consider adding is whether a pawn move advances past where your knight wants to go (a4, c4,f4,h4) in regular chess, thereby allowing the knight to develop without blocking pawns (it could possibly notated as dN in your system.)
Also, you should consider whether or not the pawn move creates a possible outpost. For example, if a bishop starts on h1, pawn moving to c4 would create an outpost on d5 because they double their threat. (This could be notated as opB.) In fact all dN would create opN as well.

Other attributes you might want to consider adding is whether a pawn move advances past where your knight wants to go (a4, c4,f4,h4) in regular chess, thereby allowing the knight to develop without blocking pawns (it could possibly notated as dN in your system.)
Also, you should consider whether or not the pawn move creates a possible outpost. For example, if a bishop starts on h1, pawn moving to c4 would create an outpost on d5 because they double their threat. (This could be notated as opB.) In fact all dN would create opN as well.
Hey Joe, thanx for this nice suggestion, I will use it.
But it will never compare with the wealth of opening theory for real chess.