I just started playing live 960 against the computer and find that either the chess.com 960 program does not know the correct rules for castling, or I don't.
Yes it is probably me.
But if I move my king to g1 or c1, and there are no pieces between the king and the rook on that side, shouldn't that mean castle?
To castle in chess960, select the king and then select the rook.
I just started playing live 960 against the computer and find that either the chess.com 960 program does not know the correct rules for castling, or I don't.
Yes it is probably me.
But if I move my king to g1 or c1, and there are no pieces between the king and the rook on that side, shouldn't that mean castle?
To castle in chess960, select the king and then select the rook.
I will try it, thanks!
I have only played a few games but I am enjoying Chess960. I find it difficult to memorise openings and it feels like cheating to look them up.
Is is cheating to look up openings in FIDE Chess?
Nice variant!
I had my chess 960 game analyzed by the chess.com engine. It found zero book moves.
I enjoy playing 960 but the "standard" time of 3'0" is exasperating. Not only does it take a bit of time to wait/seek a challenge to do so outside of that time stamp is nigh impossible. I prefer to play the game with an increment to compensate for the initial board study time suck. For a site that wants to promote and takes part in FR championships in which all formats the player is able to analyze the position for a limited time I think it would greatly increase the game play enjoy-ability and number of available seekers if an initial 10 or 15 second delay/countdown to the start of the game to analyze the position. Else white is always at a time disadvantage as black is utilizing White's time making the first move to understand the set up. In a blitz/rapid game with no increment this is a vital advantage as often as I white I'll flag a few seconds ahead of my opponent.
The time standardization for this variant on the website should be changed to encourage more play.
Thanks for explanations.
I enjoy playing 960 but the "standard" time of 3'0" is exasperating. Not only does it take a bit of time to wait/seek a challenge to do so outside of that time stamp is nigh impossible. I prefer to play the game with an increment to compensate for the initial board study time suck. For a site that wants to promote and takes part in FR championships in which all formats the player is able to analyze the position for a limited time I think it would greatly increase the game play enjoy-ability and number of available seekers if an initial 10 or 15 second delay/countdown to the start of the game to analyze the position. Else white is always at a time disadvantage as black is utilizing White's time making the first move to understand the set up. In a blitz/rapid game with no increment this is a vital advantage as often as I white I'll flag a few seconds ahead of my opponent.
The time standardization for this variant on the website should be changed to encourage more play.
I agree that a delay before the clock moves to allow for evaluation of the starting position makes sense. But for the 3 minute standard I don't know that that really is a standard. You can choose whatever time control you want. I also wish that people would be interested in 5/5 blitz, or 15/10 rapid 960 games. It isn't the website that is preventing this, it is just that the preference of the members here seems to be for 3 minute blitz.
Hi all, I stream chess for 1200-1800 Rated players,I solve tactics, plays with viewers, puzzle battle wth CM's, long blitz games for analzing purpose too. Do checkout and Drop me a follow on twitch.tv/corporatechessguy if you like it. Lets learn Play and grow together!Happy to help! :) :) Just send with a Fdz request on chessdotcom and let's get started!
Just played my second game of chess 960 - K was on b1, R was on a1 couldn't figure out how to castle:
A) If I moved K to c1, it is a legal move and castling wouldn't occur ( or how would the game know I wanted to castle or just move the K)
B) I tried to move the R on the other side of the K, no dice.
C) I tried to move the K farther over, say f1, no dice.
How does this work Chess960ophiles?
Found it:
Game Designer said:
In Fischer Random you have to drag the King and drop it on top of the Rook to castle.
It should also work if you click the King once then you click the Rook once without clicking any other squares.
All chess castling rules apply: once only, not moved, not in check, not passing through check, Rook can be under attack just as long as it does not affect the King.
I looked at the game you are playing, you moved one Rook from c8 to d8 so now you can only castle with the Rook on a8 but the Rook on d8 is blocking that, you need to move the Rook on d8 before you can castle.
The final positions of the King and Rook after castling is exactly the same as chess.
i hate chess 960
has anyone ever managed on this site to play all the 960 variations ? Of those players who solely play 960, how far have you got ?
has anyone ever managed on this site to play all the 960 variations ? Of those players who solely play 960, how far have you got ?
I cant imagine keeping track of that.
I don't know if all the variations are even offered here.
I don't know if all the variations are even offered here.
Sure they are. The starting position is generated randomly and can be any of the 960 positions, or maybe it's 958 because the normal chess position and the normal position with king and queen swapped are usually eliminated as possibilities
No,I believe it's always 960.
No, it's always 960
So you are saying you can get the normal chess starting position in a 960 game here? Why would you say that all the positions aren't offered here?
I just started playing live 960 against the computer and find that either the chess.com 960 program does not know the correct rules for castling, or I don't.
Yes it is probably me.
But if I move my king to g1 or c1, and there are no pieces between the king and the rook on that side, shouldn't that mean castle?