Chess 960 is best test of chess skill

Free throw contests are the best test of basketball skill.  Shooting is the only part of basketball that really takes skill.  Dribbling, passing, set plays, defense, substitutions, all of that stuff is just in the way.  The true skill part of basketball is the shooting.

So free throw shooting is the true test of basketball skill.

@MJ4H: Maybe you're trying to be funny, but your analogy, if that's what you're making, does not fit for Chess 960 vis-a-vis standard chess. (I enjoy your attempt, though!)

As a 960 Chess player I have found out that generally A person's Standerd rating is about 300 elo points higher than his 960 rating. So a knowledge of openings does greatly affect there overall rating ofcourse, its just interesting how much it helps a person.

" SaharanKnight wrote:

@MJ4H: Maybe you're trying to be funny, but your analogy, if that's what you're making, does not fit for Chess 960 vis-a-vis standard chess. (I enjoy your attempt, though!)"

I think the analogy works if you play a version of basketball with a component (say, free throws) removed and then claim it's a better measure of bball skill.

See for yourself. 

It's not valid to compare 960 ratings side-by-side with standard. For one, there are far more standard games played, which leads to inflation. Second, ratings only have meaning within the same rating pool.

Yep all true. True what I said as well.

Not quite - your statement lacks evidence. What reason do I have to think that it greatly affects rating? Sure - opening knowledge is generally helpful in playing better - but does it really have that much effect (especially at the lower class levels - you will be taken out of book much quickly).

Because in a normal chess games you are the only one who can utilize early/mid game theory.

OH WAIT, your opponent has that ability too!

the evidence is the ppl i played. They were ALL between 200-300 elo points higher in in Standard chess. Opening knowledge does greatly affect your rating. Those who go out of book early surely have EVEN LESS tactical knowledge. those pple who cant break 1300 elo will not get past 1100 elo. they will probably be even closer to 1000 elo.

But I already pointed out why it is meaningless that your opponents are rated 200-300 points higher. And you said it was true.

How can anything other than standard chess be considered better at measuring how well you play standard chess?

Again I'll risk a sane comment in an inane thread...

That's like saying blitz ratings are lower because there's less time to think.  That only makes sense if the opponent isn't also affected by this imagined handicap.  In blitz both players must play with less time, and in 960 both players aren't aided by opening / midgame knowledge.  Ratings are a relative measure for a single pool of players only.

Hey guys do the math. no its not like blitz at all. im talking about 2 TYPES of games timed the same. if you take opening theory out. the average person's elo will drop. many many people rely on there memorized ideas for openings to help them through a game. EXAMPLE: Grandmaster vs average person. Now if the average person plays the game out against the GM . the average person uses memorized ideas to get him to move 10. He plays like a Grandmaster until oops no more book! within 7-8 moves the average person is defeated. Now in a 960 game, average person against GM, he is playing at his skill level from MOVE # 1. Because the board is different the guy actually has to THINK ON HIS OWN. How long do you think he will last? 10-12 moves? He may last 20 in a regular game. but in 960 he is toast fast. Ive beaten guys in 2-3 moves even though they have a respectable rating of 1500-1600 standard. its because they have ZERO aid to help them in there game. 

Is there a world ranking/rating list for chess 960?

So by making certain chess skills obsolete you're better able to test skill in chess (contradiction).

When someone reads an opening or middle game book they're increasing their skill for the board game _______  (I say chess).

People who play chess960 are still aided by knowing how the pieces move. The best measure of chess skill would be a game where the piece movement is different each game. So for instance, maybe in one game the knight moves forward like a bishop and backwards like a rook. Although even in that game players would still be aided by tactical motifs such as pins and forks. Maybe the best test of chess skill is scrabble, since then you aren’t relying on anything you already know about chess! 

The kind of math we've been doing so far is like "People who play squash average 4-5 points more per game that in racquetball, so the smaller ball is a big help to them." :P

You seem to confuse Elo rating with absolute level of play. But it is only a measure for relative levels of play.

dont forget to copy the rest of what i said.