960 random thoughts

Yes like I said even in the early 1900s people thought this way, but they were wrong.  You seem to feel very strongly that you have to justify your preference of 960 over standard chess, but there's no reason to.  It's ok to like it.

If you want to add credibility to anything you're saying (whether it's about chess or anything else) it's best not to use any Fischer quote from the 90s... especially radio interviews.  You know what those radio interviews were primarily about right?

He called chess dead in the 70's?  Where's the documentation? He was playing Spassky in iceland in '72.  Also, calling him mentally ill for promoting 960 and just afraid of losing  seems kind of slanderous (to me). 

Oops, I said 70s, I was wrong -- I was thinking of the WC match doh

Reading about Fischer's life from when he was just a kid I've honestly felt sorry for him.  He so obviously had mental troubles from the beginning yet no one around him ever helped him.  I don't know if that was the standard for the times or what -- but I'm not trying to demean Fischer when I call him mentally ill, I honestly feel sorry for him, I'm sure there were times when he was happy, but I think he was mostly miserable, from beginning to end.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and how much less someone who produced such brilliant chess.

By the way Fischer was obviously very intelligent, and unrelated to his illness and intelligence is how 960 is a legitimate game -- just in case you might think this is somehow trying to bad talk 960.

FYI,  Loomis opined that the quote I found was probably from 30 years ago.  I was just correcting his factual error.  All of these quotes from Fischer I found in just the past half hour or so, not something I carry around in my wallet.  By no means am I on a mission to denegrate the most hallowed game of Chess which members of this forum have devoted their lives and sacred honour to. 

Just to reiterate my one main point from the OP - anyone who has never played 960 really should because they'll get a big kick out of it. 

Just wanted to acknowledge this because you made some really worthwhile comments. 

As far as opening knowledge being irrelevant in 960, over time I think a vast compendium of knowledge will be developed on 960 as well.  However it will be a more complex and nuanced  theory than for standard chess because 960 is a more complex game. I guess essentially we're  at the point with 960 where chess was 200 years ago or something.  Back then there wasn't a lot of theory for standard chess either (I'm assuming - or relatively speaking anyway - I guess the Ruy Lopez existed, etc.) But in the information age things will develop a lot quicker with 960 presumably  (I guess it will have to develop quickly given the current end-times prognostications of some.)

And also your remarks about 960 changing how you think about standard chess, that as well I think is true.

I was trying to avoid conflicts here, still hope that they are not necessary. Bullet chess could also easily be seen as a completely different game by someone who hasn't played it, although at a closer look it might appear quite similar. Hm... I am pretty good at pool but I am not saying that it's chess or that it should be introduced here as chess. There is a remote possibility that I am expressing my honest opinions. If asked what is closer to real chess, 960 or a bullet game, I think that I know what I would answer. I guess that the question doesn't have to be asked though. At least what is common to both sects is that they are not using engines to play.

What do you mean by engine - I've always been unclear on that.  If you mean a chess computer then presumably all of them you can enter an arbitrary starting point so you could use them to cheat at 960 as well. If you mean something like the chess.com Game Explorer then that's actually legal in online chess here,  but something even I wouldn't use (but of course it couldn't be used for 960 anyway.)

Hehe, you're not really safe from cheaters by playing bullet.  Other than copying moves from one screen to another, advanced cheaters use a program to automatically make the moves for them.  They can even move faster than 1 move per second with some setups.

Same goes for 960 although I bet it is less common.  If you wanted to there's nothing stopping you from using an engine for this too.

960 is not real chess only noobs would play that i cant waste my time on that plus i dont play cc anymore

It has nothing to do with Loomis, you were "preaching, bashing, and name calling" from the beginning.  The snarky stuff (in bold) that you throw in makes it obvious you're not in the mood to have any kind of serious discussion.  Stuff like the following.

and similar posts.  Also you didn't have to tell me you pulled up those quotes in the last half hour, the quotes were flimsy support because you didn't know didn't care about the context and people saying them.  Believe me it was clear you were rushing out to copy and paste something that agreed with you instead of supporting a long held or serious point of view... so you really didn't need to point this out.

I see in your profile you're not some bratty kid, so I don't need to tell you how see through all this is.  I know you're not in the mood to respond to anything that doesn't agree with you, so it's fine to ignore any points I made and change the subject / form a semantic argument, like Triklev said "it'd been done"  Just not letting you act like you're so pure and innocent here lol.

You think people would "get it kick out of it" if they try 960, and you may be right.  I'm sure I'd enjoy it too, but I don't play chess as some fun game to frivolously pass the time, it's more like a hobby that I take a bit more seriously.  Still I'm not going to bad mouth 960, like you seem determined to do to chess.

orange honda - I'll consider your post more carefully, but I am frankly mystified by the vitriol that's been directed at me from the inception of this thread, merely for expressing some new found and genuine enthusiasm for the game Fischer devoted the last couple of decades or so of his life to.  I just wanted to get other people interested in it.  I guess its true that you really have to put smiley faces next to everything or people will get the completely wrong idea.  But I think smileys are trite so I never use them.  Now I've probably offended the pro smiley crowd.

Another thing orange:

Maybe what I did constitutes "quote-mining", don't know really, but if you had bothered to find a quote from some grandmaster saying, "960 is truly a worthless game and a waste of time for any serious adult player"  I personally would have been intrigued and done a quick search to find out more about his viewpoint.  But you didn't bother to do that.

It may have been impossible for all I know, as there may be no one of any significance saying such things.  As far as the quotes I found, I stumbled onto them in seconds, and it wasn't any trouble to post them.  Assumed they would be thought-provoking, not inflammatory.

You made some defamatory statements about a person,  Bobby Fischer, (not just a game)  saying he was mentally ill and afraid of losing and didn't provide one lick of documentation to back it up.  I find corroborating facts and quotes for a person's assertions helpful, and in fact mandatory, not "bratty" or "preachy".

 Candyland - ROFL!!

That summed up my thoughts about this thread well thanks!

I guess it's the perceived attitude.  I thought you just wanted to stir things up.  If you really like 960 that's great, it's a legitimate game.  You can even take it more seriously than I do chess.  I just don't like the idea of "standard chess is played out, dead, and dull" when unless you're a 2800 rated monster, opening theory doesn't change much to actual game play.  I've trotted out 20 moves of theory from a database and lost on move 22, so I'm saying that from experience.  That I enjoy novel opening ideas and playing different openings is probably something someone who like 960 (such as yourself) and I have in common.

If I found some GM saying 960 is full of it, it shouldn't really matter, 960 will still be just as deep and enjoyable to all it's fans and future fans.  There are GMs who come up with variants (like Seriwan and I forget this other guy) who promote their variant while at the same time saying "this isn't to take away from standard chess, which is still the best."  I don't want to dig up those quotes, because again it's just personal opinion.  If you want some substance to my arguments I'd want to point out chess and chess 960 are too complex to be "played out" any time soon... read the next 10,000 years.  I can understand GMs having to deal with the "draw death of chess" but for guys like you and me it's a matter of personal preference.

What I've read about Fischer I read years ago and would take too long to pull up (I need to log off this addictive site soon anyway).  Stuff that wasn't even about his mental health, like the pamphlet he wrote after he was arrested (mistaken identity) or stories about how he grew up and how he acted.  They weren't specifically about if he was mentally healthy or not, but you get a strong impression that long before his well documented tournament behavior and rants in the 90s he was troubled.  Even as a youth he was paranoid and carried around bottled water and vitamins in case someone was trying to poison him he would have his personal supply of nourishment.  He was brilliant and his chess was brilliant, I'm not trying to attack Fischer, like I said before in fact I wish he had had the chance to live a happier life.  Also this isn't a backhand attack on 960, which fully deserves to be played and enjoyed and taken seriously as I take standard chess seriously.  I'm just saying Fischer didn't often have an objective view of things outside of moves on the chessboard so I don't automatically give his quotes as much weight as you might intend for me to.

#42

The fact that Seirawan and others are coming up with all these chess variants seems to imply there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the very best players over standard chess.

This isn't surprising - chess has changed innumerable times over the course of its history to meet the demands of a new generation.  Nothing can stay the same -  its impossible.

This may sound like an obscure reference, but the reason that Venice is sinking now is that in previous centuries they just kept building on top of other buildings as the sea level rose, but now since the city is deemed an historical landmark it cannot be changed - so its sinking (from a PBS documentary).

My point being the chess as well should not be considered a historical landmark either or it will sink.

Every sport in existence has a rules committee that meets yearly to discuss rule changes to make the game more interesting, exciting, equitable, less violent, more violent or whatever.

As far as the existing Chess variants - 960 seems to be the most coherent, its certainly by far the most well known.  It should not lose its premiere status just because of innumerable other obscure variants, like Seirawan's which was only invented a couple of years ago:

Seirawan chess is a chess variant invented by grandmaster Yasser Seirawan in 2007.^[1] It is played on the standard 8x8 board and uses two new pieces, the hawk (which moves like a knight or a bishop) and the elephant (which moves like a knight or a rook). Yasser Seirawan has given simultaneous exhibitions for the game

a new elephant and hawk piece - that doesn't seem like a legitimate competitior with 960.

DO NOT let Standard Chess die bt let us also try out chess960 as well. After all in standard chess; the positions in middle-game R more like 960. Isn't it??

I agree, S-chess is a bit of a joke to me heh (although sounds interesting to try lol).  Add some uncreative pieces and you have a varient.  In that respect 960 certainly does seem like the premier variant as you put it.  The idea of not considering chess as a historical landmark "or it will sink" is interesting, I hadn't thought of it like this before.

I'm not sure how much the creation of variants signifies a dissatisfaction.  I would point out how many GMs struggle to make a living as they don't have time for a "real" job due to how much time and effort they put into chess, so it may be to add income.  It's an interesting point though, and like you've said there are GMs who are dissatisfied.  Possibly that the next generation of super GMs are still willing to practically devote their lives to excel at the game is a good indicator that chess isn't on it's deathbed.  Also sites like this which have grown the last few years.

From a personal perspective, standard chess is impossible for me to play out, so to speak.  Today I played over a game practically 100 years old Alekhine vs some guy I've never heard of.  Not only was the opening different, the way he attacked and the maneuvers were crazy -- I'll never be able to play like that.  Every time I see some novel opening or some ludicrously precise endgame technique the game stays fresh for me -- this is probably why I have a hard time thinking of chess in the way you're describing.

Although it's worth pointing out that if 960 were the standard (I were able to go to clubs and tournaments with it) and standard chess the variant, I could see myself playing 960 and not standard.  There's nothing special about chess itself, as long as it stays challenging and I can play against others for the next 100 years I'd like it.  It's only because I learned chess first and it already has a good infrastructure with clubs and tourneys that I think of it the way I do.

"The idea of not considering chess as a historical landmark "or it will sink" is interesting, I hadn't thought of it like this before."

Just came up with it  - seriously. The fallacy of argument by analogy, but sounded good