madhacker, you've made the most sense so far!
Chess 960 is best test of chess skill
Sort:
Jun 11, 2013
0
#43
qrayons wrote:
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!
There is a distinction between measuring skill and testing one's skill. Both are being discussed...
Just considering the openings, I suppose there can be little doubt that playing through the opening 12 moves in Chess 960 is a much better test of one's skill than playing the opening 12 moves in standard chess. In standard chess, one's skill is tested especially when an opponent leaves the mainline. Also an important skill in standard is in making judgments about the opening variations, deciding which is objectively better or otherwise works better with one's own ability. But in Chess 960, one has to figure everything out on one's own, so it is a tremendous test!
SaharanKnight wrote:
qrayons wrote:
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!
There is a distinction between measuring skill and testing one's skill. Both are being discussed...
Just considering the openings, I suppose there can be little doubt that playing through the opening 12 moves in Chess 960 is a much better test of one's skill than playing the opening 12 moves in standard chess. In standard chess, one's skill is tested especially when an opponent leaves the mainline. Also an important skill in standard is in making judgments about the opening variations, deciding which is objectively better or otherwise works better with one's own ability. But in Chess 960, one has to figure everything out on one's own, so it is a tremendous test!
No one is disputing that chess 960 tests skills that are also used in chess. It’s just not the best measure of chess skill. Saying 960 is the best measure of chess skill is like saying minigolf is the best measure of golf skill. Sure, minigolf might be better at measuring putting skill, in the same way that 960 is probably better at measuring tactical skill. But driving is a part of golf the same way that standard openings are a part of chess.
Jun 12, 2013
0
#45
qrayons wrote:
SaharanKnight wrote: ... I suppose there can be little doubt that playing through the opening 12 moves in Chess 960 is a much better test of one's skill than playing the opening 12 moves in standard chess. In standard chess, one's skill is tested especially when an opponent leaves the mainline. Also an important skill in standard is in making judgments about the opening variations, deciding which is objectively better or otherwise works better with one's own ability. But in Chess 960, one has to figure everything out on one's own, so it is a tremendous test!
@qrayons: As I said, it seems to me that Chess 960 is the better test of the skills of opening play, compared with standard chess... and it could be argued that those are the most important of chess skills even though they are not tested so much in standard chess anymore. Also, Chess 960 may be a better test of middlegame skills, as well, since middlegame positions in standard are familiar in comparison with Chess 960. Be the endgame, I think that comparisons may not needed because there may not be endgame positions unique to either. I think it's a good argument, anyway.
Jun 13, 2013
0
#46
Mr_YinYang wrote:
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.
Although my Standard rating is only about 100 points higher than my 960 Chess rating... I have the courage to say that my knowledge of openings CERTAINLY does put my standard rating higher. How can one even debate that?
I agree with you ShanaranKnight! All I was trying to say was...opening knowledge increseas you elo. Without it, a regular players skill will go down greatly and this can be seen in 960 games!
I like 960. What I don't like is people who quit the game if you don't make a first move within 3 seconds. They are obviously out there just to play a mindless quick blitz without any thought put into it. It is completely normal to analyze a 960 opening thoroughly before making the first move.
True. Undefended pawns are half the reason people make threads about really, really quick 960 games.
Development is key. In nearly 50 games, many of them top players. I have notice that Bishops, not Knights are more important to develop first as then Rooks then Queen. All because they are long range attacking pieces. But first the pawns in front of them need to be moved up. When the pawns reach the 4th rank, it is a good idea generally place your knights in front of the advanced pawns. Castling should be saved rather than done within the 1st 10 moves because 960 castling rules can change the dynamics of the game dramatically. Follwing these general guidelines will help ones 960 play alot. This information can be found in the only 960 book I could find. "Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960" by Gene Milener.
Sep 19, 2013
0
#51
Well, Chess 960 is definitely the best test of skill in applying opening principles. Opening principles are the same in Chess 960 as in standard -- one just sweats them more in 960! For instance, the principle of generally developing knights before bishops is just as pertinent in 960 as in standard.
WHY, then, develop a knight or knights before the bishop? If one cannot answer the WHY question, one will have difficulty in making the correct application or recognizing the exceptional case. I have asked this question before and have yet to get an answer, strangely. There is a very simple short answer, and there is the long answer.
By definition, the best measure of chess skill is chess. Because "chess skill" just means the skills needed to be good at chess. The better your results at chess, the more "chess skill" you have, whatever that means.