Don't want 960

Actually, we are playing Chess 960 already. The standard position is one of the 960 possible positions.

It says here that Fischer "invented" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960

Why?

Yes, the game Capablanca invented is called Capablanca Chess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capablanca_chess

Chess960 is just normal chess without opening theory. I don't understand why some people don't like it.

Could be that chess as it is, has such a rich variety, that to scramble the back row pieces on the pretense that opening theory in the original game has made chess "dead", is absurd.

Omega chess or Capablanca or Seirawan chess would be too far out for me as they introduce new pieces that move differently than the pieces in normal chess. It seems to me that this would indeed be a completely different game.

Tryst I've read some of your posts and I've noticed that for some reason you don't like Fischer, so maybe that's why you don't like Fischer Random Chess. Obviously chess is not played out yet, but it's not just about the opening theory. There are so many examples how to play in typical positions in the middlegame that a weak or average player can play a good game almost without making his own moves. Actually he may not even understand the good moves he's making.

Nyul, I don't understand almost every move I make! If it weren't for 1. e4, I don't think I would make a good move in the game. Fischer's proclamations are quite enough to make me criticize 960, but I also think that chess, as played now, is much too profound for grandmasters to pronounce the game "dead". Changes have occurred in the game since it's birth, and may continue while still being called chess. I am going to defend the game as it is now, as I am sure that others had defended the game before castling, en passant, etc.

Not everyone plays 960 because they think that chess is dead... some (maybe a lot) play it because they are tired of the same openings and want to try something different. 

If someone doesn't like it, or doesn't want to play it, and wants to say so... that's fine, but to call it a "disgrace" is a bit too far. Don't think of it like an addition to chess, think of it as a separate, but somewhat similar game (since that's really what it is), and maybe it's existance will be a bit easier to stomach.

"Disgrace" fits. No reason to change that.

Why does it fit? What is wrong if someone wants to play a different game than chess sometimes?

"Disgrace", is to tarnish the graceful game of chess.

Nothing wrong with wanting to play a different game. Go bowling if you want to.

How does 960 tarnish chess? It's a different game. Not everyone likes it, and I'm ok with that, but how does it take anything away from standard chess?

I believe my opinion is documented in the previous posts on this thread.

Agree with Tryst. 960 hurts chess and is quite unnecessary and ridiculous attempt to undermine and ruin the great game of chess. Disgrace is the right word.

It should not be promoted and encouraged by chess sites IMO.

It is especially annoying to receive invitations and messages about it on the chess site when you are trying to play chess.

I'm sorry, maybe I missed it, but I don't see an answer to my question. Your opinion is clear that you don't like 960. But how does someone on this site playing 960 hurt or tarnish standard chess? That you've never said that I can see.

Again... how? I'm confused how a different game effects chess in any way.

And again, it's not clear how 960 tarnishes anything... its a different game. Someone playing 960 affects standard chess about as much as someone bowling. So... what is the problem?

I find that Fischer is an arrogant fool. That the reasons he invented 960 are typical of his conceit. And those wonderful masters and grandmasters who support claims of chess being dead, or played out, and wish to invoke new life into the game, by changing the game in the radical way Fischer purposed, I find to be insulting chess. Perhaps my position would be considered "purest".

Wow... people are seriously odd, getting worked up about something like this.

As has already been mentioned, the normal chess position is simply a 'variant' of chess960 too.

The rules are all pretty much the same. In fact, any 'special' rules there are for chess960 are biased towards 'normal' chess positions - for example the castling puts the kings/rooks in the normal castled position.

So, comparing chess960 to chess, they use the same rules for piece movement, the same special rules (castling, e.p. etc), and have exactly the same number of pieces. The only difference is their original placement.

It follows that as far as I can see, those who 'hate' chess960 as a 'disgrace' have a pretty shallow appreciation and understanding of normal chess. Because most of the beauty of chess is reflected in chess960 too.

Hating a variant because of who invented is is nonsensical as well. There's just no logical connection.

I'm totally baffled by some posters on this thread.