I prefer the classic, good chess. Way better. And I have become so used to good ol' chess, that 960 simply confuses me. I like classic stuff. Even Coca Cola. Just imagine. Why is it even called 960?
Chess 960. Good or bad for chess as a game.
Sort:
Unleash_the_Queens írta:
I prefer the classic, good chess. Way better. And I have become so used to good ol' chess, that 960 simply confuses me. I like classic stuff. Even Coca Cola. Just imagine. Why is it even called 960?
Because there are 960 possible positions as the starting set up (that is, with the rule that there must be different colored bishops and the king has to be between the two rooks).
salatoy wrote:
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Heartfiglia írta:
peloduro wrote:
The world championship , and any other calibre of chess tournament should be play under CHESS960 rules ; And we will start to see REAL CHESS MASTERS , arize and shine ; No more prearrange dozen or so.. MEMORIZED DRAWS .
memorized draws? it does not exist
He has a point, though. If you look at the top players as they play (most of the times), they just move and move without ever thinking about it, since they already know the first 30 moves because of their home preparation with engines and stuff. Look at the Carlsen vs Anand match, where they drew because of the 3 fold repetition rule, it was just obvious that they both knew the outcome around move 10 and already agreed to a draw by playing it.
I'm going with 960, as it is truly unpredictable and actually makes you think a lot more than standard chess, you just can't see the patterns if they're not there. Fischer was right, a true genius would be just as good in it as in normal chess. It's a shame top players don't play it (as far as I know), and though it sounds ridiculous from a noob like me, I fall asleep when I see top players drawing games before they even get exciting for the single purpose that they need a draw.
(Seriously, in one of Ben Finegold's lectures, he says how weird it is that tournaments nowadays aren't about who wins, but rather who draws more higher rated opponents than others.)
Real chess was played in the 19th century, and died when players started spending hours memorising patterns instead of playing risky and trying out their own ideas. Now top players are playing a move because an engine says so.
Just my two cents.
all you said are very interesting and i could completely agree with them although im not with 960. i think i play something like "the REAL chess" you said. i almost never study about openings and many times during a game my moves are based in my ideas.
Anyway the only moves i can memorize are the first 5 of a game.
I totally agree. Yes, the very opening lines are good to memorize. But after that, well, just play chess like a normal human being already! Ι like Capablanca, Alekhine (even though I disliked him as a character generally) and Tal because they were taking the risk and always used the most beautiful weapon in chess: tactics. Real tactics, very dangerous and risky ones in fact. Nowdays, thank god we have a Nakamura who despises draws. But everybody else just draws all the time. Not only does he draw, but also memorizes a WHOLE game. Nobody tries something risky anymore. I mean, look at this game from Tal against Botnivik:
Tell me who plays as risky and as beautifully as Tal did in this game today. And especially in a World Championship match! Nowdays, World Championship matches are like: Carlsen totally beat up Anand, he beat him one whole time, because Anand messed up the 23rd move, because he hadn't memorized it well enough. So, Carlsen, with 596 draws and 1 win is the ultimate winner!
Still, I don't think that Chess 960 is better. Actually, it is a whole ton worse. I like old classic chess and I will always do. What has to change is the way people play chess. GMs have to start playing differently. I mean, at my level, I don't see the problem at all. The problems start from a level of 1600 and higher, and they reach their peak at Super GM levels. Who knows, maybe one day a new very talented chess player will arise and will change everything. Maybe. But in my opinion, chess 960 or any other variant is not a solution.
How long is that post? How did I even post that much? What?
There's a lot more to the opening than opening theory and in chess960 I have found myself using ideas from regular openings. Basically even if we replaced chess with chess960 we would still need to study openings, although a different approach than theory is necessary.
Martin0 írta:
There's a lot more to the opening than opening theory and in chess960 I have found myself using ideas from regular openings. Basically even if we replaced chess with chess960 we would still need to study openings, although a different approach than theory is necessary.
I wouldn't say so, the only thing that would remain are the principles. I mean theory only worked if, let's say a match would only have one of the basic setups and both player would know which setup is that before the game.
But then again, it'd just kill the fun in 960. 960 should be played with different setups every single game. That way no one can prepare for it which was basically the point of Fischer.
does anyone think that playing chess with different setups will give different results or different ratings? the middlegames and the endgames will end up similarly and rating and results will show a +.95 or higher level of correlation. GMs will be GMs and patzers will be patzers... I saw one GM offer a game in which two boards were set up side by side...the GM had only one king while the strong player/challenger (read patzer in this case) had two..GM had to mate both while strong player only had to mate one....it's an old hustle...GM had no problem...World champions are very, very flexible...
Apr 24, 2014
0
#28
Unleash the queens i agree totally with you i prefer the old good chess.
a think i like too much in 960 is castling since there are so many different ways to castle
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
Martin0 írta:
There's a lot more to the opening than opening theory and in chess960 I have found myself using ideas from regular openings. Basically even if we replaced chess with chess960 we would still need to study openings, although a different approach than theory is necessary.
I wouldn't say so, the only thing that would remain are the principles. I mean theory only worked if, let's say a match would only have one of the basic setups and both player would know which setup is that before the game.
But then again, it'd just kill the fun in 960. 960 should be played with different setups every single game. That way no one can prepare for it which was basically the point of Fischer.
I never said theory works for chess960. To me it is obvious that if you study a lot of different openings/setups you will play the opening in chess960 better.
Apr 24, 2014
0
#30
its a clever opinion. all are based to studying.
if you study you will be very good if not no. its in your hands
Apr 24, 2014
0
#31
Fischer was probaly right when he said, that purelyas a game , it was just ok. its biggest merit is that it basically looks like the the old chess, so more people would be willing to give it a try. I m convinced thats the reason why omega chess and gothic chess never caught on. to a "average" player they look too imtimidating,
later
goommba88
Apr 24, 2014
0
#32
i think that 960 is a kind of chess which "wins" the new chess players and not the ones who have been playing for years
salatoy írta:
i think that 960 is a kind of chess which "wins" the new chess players and not the ones who have been playing for years
Funny you say that, as it was created by Fischer. Capablanca also had his variants with randomized piece orders.
Is unfear to atest that there isin't any "FASCINATING" mates in CHESS 960 ; For several reazons ; A) Has not been played for 100/'s of years , B) CHESS 960 games are not publicize, C) Were to find CHESS 960 expert oppinions???? ?..If we aren't playing ?
Magnis_Carlsin_Jr írta:
If you want to "save chess" just get rid of the draws. Chess is an excellent game because there is no random element to it.
Oh my, you can spell?
Get rid of draws? I've always thought they were a wonderfully natural part of the game, but just how do you propose to do it, I'm very curious.
Maybe a 'extra-time'?
King, one bishop and one knight and one rook vs king one bishop and one knight and one rook?
Daryl_F írta:
Get rid of draws? I've always thought they were a wonderfully natural part of the game, but just how do you propose to do it, I'm very curious.
Well, for example, in Shatranj, a stalemate is a win. That's a start.
960 sucks!!!!!! classic is best!!!!!!!!! anyone who disagrees can GTH!!!!!!!!!
I liked 960 better when I was totally horrible at opening. I'm still bad at opening, but I've improved enough that 960 messes with my head. Wait, I want to... But I can't... Because... Hmmm. And don't get me started about castling.
It's fine for a diversion, but I don't think I'll ever get serious about it.