OK I admit it. I'm "too daft to be aware of cross-symmetric positions". What are they?
why no chess1920
Sort:
Interesting question - and I don't have the answer! There was a brief discussion about Chess1920 on this forum back in 2013, which focused on what the castling rules might be: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-variants/brcchess1920
Jul 17, 2018
0
#5
I think i have the answer.
It isn't because of some technical reason that impairs the enjoyment or quality of play. Its because to get the public to pick up a new idea requires a fortune or miraculous marketing or luck. No matter how wonderful or how simple to understand the idea is, the biggest impediment and most likely reason for not implementing is the public just won't pick it up.
Having said that, chess.com have got a few maverick games to play.
There may be some truth in that, but having thought about it a bit more I'm not sure Chess1920 would be any improvement. It might in fact be less desirable - you've got the castling rules complication (see link I gave in post #4), also if you have queens or bishops on opposing corner squares it might lead to early exchanges. You can argue that having 960 different starting positions is already enough, and there's no need for more!
I've played several games of Double Fischer Random on Scheming Mind (usually as a pair of games) - this is the same as Chess960, except the white and black starting positions do not mirror each other. It gives many thousands of starting positions, but I forget the exact number. Some of those positions may give a bit of an advantage to one of the players, but at least in my games the stronger player usually triumphed, regardless of any possible opening disadvantage.
Jul 20, 2018
0
#7
yes, opposing bishs and queens in the corners is a depreciating factor for chess1920. But just like the particular rules for chess960 ( rook either side of the king to preserve castling, bishs have to be on opposite colour squares ), a rule against corner bishs and queens can be implemented. Granted, it wouldn't be chess1920 anymore, but it would be more varied than chess960
Dec 2, 2023
0
#8
MalcolmHorne wrote:
There may be some truth in that, but having thought about it a bit more I'm not sure Chess1920 would be any improvement. It might in fact be less desirable - you've got the castling rules complication (see link I gave in post #4), also if you have queens or bishops on opposing corner squares it might lead to early exchanges. You can argue that having 960 different starting positions is already enough, and there's no need for more!
I've played several games of Double Fischer Random on Scheming Mind (usually as a pair of games) - this is the same as Chess960, except the white and black starting positions do not mirror each other. It gives many thousands of starting positions, but I forget the exact number. Some of those positions may give a bit of an advantage to one of the players, but at least in my games the stronger player usually triumphed, regardless of any possible opening disadvantage.
actually that's a good point. Given that chess is lobsided anyway wrt winning chances, and that 'chess is too drawish' is a old and common complaint in pro-circles, then double random starting positions should be at least tried, and is arguably better since its another nail in the coffin of opening theory. Fairness, if needed, could be given by playing 2 games of the same start position, each player getting to play white once.
can anyone explain one of the 1st questions anyone should have when 1st considering chess960
why isn't it chess1920 ?
it is just as fair to have cross-symmetric starting positions as mirror starting positions, yet this nice enriching property of the chessboard is shunned. Why? How do we gain from this?
chess960 is an old variation, promoted by great players for decades for the sole purpose of creating variety in the starting position and freeing players of having to learn books of opening theory. yet in all this time I've yet to hear a single decent explanation for chopping the variety of starting positions in half.
For the time being, it seems to me that the only reason is the 1st people to promote chess960 were too daft to be aware of cross-symmetric positions, and since then everyone has just assumed there was an amazingly good reason for not having cross symmetric start positions, but they themselves were too naive or dumb to work it out.