Are you trying to qualify? If not, can we have feedback? :)

i like DanielRensch

It is not worth paying an entry if you know you aren't going to win

If that were sound thought, basically the entire USCF chess scene would collapse.

Hey Danny,

  I considered entering, I'm what you might call a strong club player (1900 USCF) but I have never played Fischer random. So I'm a bit worried that entering would be a waste of time. What would help me sign up is a basic tutorial on 960 rules (e.g. I keep getting confused about castling even when I watch those events) and some general tips on how to approach it. I'd feel way more inclined to try it out if you made some such resource available on chess.com. 

Thanks,

Vishnu

I did know, but I knew I had not shot at winning, so I was going to be wasting money. I didn't play therefore.

However if you have paid events where one could reasonably win, 1450-1550 (or 1750-1850 only or 700-800 only) only paid tournaments that would be worth trying out. Players could play at their own strength levels and win.

Ofcourse with money involved the temptation to cheat for players would be huge. So very strick anti-cheating measures would have to be in place. Additionally player would be tempted to deliberately lose so their elo tanks and someone who is 1500 would drop to 700 and play in a lower level tournament and win real money.

So that will also have to be affected. An alternative route could be that what level tournament you are eligible for would be avg of your elo in the past few months.

I've never played 960 and besides, I'm no tournament material. And I haven't got any extra money. So I didn't sign up. 

I think this is getting away from studying and learning chess. If I had extra money to spend on chess I would do better to spend it on chess books. I feel the same way about subscribing to twitch channels, or spending time watching them. Chess.com itself is valuable because it can set up games with good opponents and give me good tactics.

what!!!!

Feedback was asked for.

My feedback - it's not 'real chess'. No interest. Chess is actually 'interesting' when one understands 'patterns' of various flavors. That is why it can never be a successful 'spectator sport' (even in the regular Olympics', because you have to know enough...in order to understand and truly appreciate.

This stuff...is just not even 'real chess'.

I am still trying to get better at regular chess

hey Milliern

@ DanielRensch This is the first I am hearing of it!

I am a member of the USCF and I really enjoy the monthly magazine they also have tournaments listed but the cost of entering, travel, and lodging have made it all but impossible to partake in but I did notice an ad in the magazine that is promoting online tournaments perhaps I will inquire as to how they deal with potential cheating maybe it requires a video cam that would be my guess.

I've recently become a fan of 960, theoretically speaking, and this is my story.

I spent a few years learning standard chess. It was and has been quite the learning curve/curb. So naturally the idea of chess variants made me nervous, they threatened my investment. Actually, scratch that. I'm simply a chess player, I want control, and having just one variant of the game gives assurance. Yet, I love a challenge. Players sacrifice for material and position, sometimes I sacrifice something for a challenge. I found that with standard chess many of my opponents play a very bland game (perhaps I'm guilty of this too), and I also found that variants came to my rescue.

I've also grown a lot as a player, and have stepped out of the box, the brand new packaging, and have learned that the essence of chess is what's most important to me as far as the game goes, and the essence of chess is with every variant. Some even say that chess itself began as a much simpler game than the one we know today and eventually evolved into the standard variant we all know and love.

Upon realising all of this, variants became something I look forward to, especially Fischer Chess. Unfortunately I haven't played this variant much, the 960 games I've played probably count less than the fingers on my right hand, and perhaps that is my reason for not signing up for this landmarking event.

I am not good enough at chess to spend my time trying variants. And playing against the likes of Magnus Carlsen would be a waste of his time, as I could not play well enough to give him an interesting game.

I wasn't interested in this online tournament until I saw all the posts about lack of interest in 960 and I realized that compared to the average chess player, I really like 960, and that I want to support it any way I can.

I will not pay to play chess out of principle.

You'll always pay to play chess. For any game in fact. We live in a society where if you're not working you're losing out. It costs to sit down and play a game. Question is are you willing to pay a little more to sit with the masters ('theoretically')?

I am not trying to qualify I do not like Fisher chess I have just about every book on Fisher and enjoy going over the games, unfortunately, I cannot devote my time to study as much as I would like most of my time is consumed with music.