Don't want 960 - Chess Forums - Page 3

Atos

Jan 10, 2010

0

#41

tryst wrote:

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".

Please, we have heard enough about FIscher from both admirers and haters. I am not sure which side is more tedious by now. He was an unfortunate man with psychological problems. But this is not relevant to Chess 960, any more than we evaluate Newton's Laws of Motion on Newton's unfortunate character.

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#42

tryst wrote:

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".

Well, Fischer wanted to change chess, but someone playing 960 here doesn't do that. Like I said, think of it as a different game (like bowling), because that's how most people who play 960 view it. Not as some grand cosmic insult to an age-old game.

Zerrogi

Jan 10, 2010

0

#43

I fail to understand how adding a new layer to Chess insults it; rather, I find that it helps glorify the game even further. I actually enjoy the fact that book theory goes out the window for a bit of opening improvisation.

@Tryst: Despising the variant just for the maker is like saying the Xbox360 is an awful system because Microsoft's CEO has no hair. Its hilarious, but ridiculous.

Personally, I'd like to see BugHouse added

tryst

Jan 10, 2010

0

#44

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#45

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

HOW is chess altered by someone playing 960? Is 960 a different game than standard chess? yes. But, does someone playing it have any effect on standard chess? Not in the least.

They are different games, and you have not made any effort to answer my question that I've asked several times about how what one person plays effects a game that you play.

marvellosity

Jan 10, 2010

0

#46

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

No, I'm baffled by pretty little, but this thread and you manage it.

Clearly you need chess960 explaining to you given your opinions on this thread.

None of the chess960 haters on this thread have yet to provide any evidence how chess960 is 'radically' different.

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#47

This thread has inspired me to go play a game or two of 960, I hope I don't radically change any of the standard games on the site by doing so.....

an_arbitrary_name

Jan 10, 2010

0

#48

Chess960 is a great game, far better than chess in my opinion. FWIW, I was talking to an IM on here the other day who agrees with me, preferring Chess960 to chess.

To be very blunt, I think a lot of the "I hate Chess960" moans come from people who cannot play well without pre-learned opening lines! But that is the beauty of Chess960 -- it requires tactical and strategic skill, and not opening memorisation.

Atos

Jan 10, 2010

0

#49

furtiveking wrote:

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

HOW is chess altered by someone playing 960? Is 960 a different game than standard chess? yes. But, does someone playing it have any effect on standard chess? Not in the least.

They are different games, and you have not made any effort to answer my question that I've asked several times about how what one person plays effects a game that you play.

To be fair, there are different positions here. Some of us think that Chess 960 is just a different game, like pool. I think it has a lot more in common with chess than pool (which I also play, but i don't ask to play it on a chess site). In this sense, these people are maybe not mistaken to react as they do.

tryst

Jan 10, 2010

0

#50

Zerrogi wrote:

I fail to understand how adding a new layer to Chess insults it; rather, I find that it helps glorify the game even further. I actually enjoy the fact that book theory goes out the window for a bit of opening improvisation.

@Tryst: Despising the variant just for the maker is like saying the Xbox360 is an awful system because Microsoft's CEO has no hair. Its hilarious, but ridiculous.

Personally, I'd like to see BugHouse added

What is ridiculous is not only your silly analogy, but what you choose or are capable of reading. I will make it simple for you even though you may dispute that I have made it complicated: I don't like chess960, I like regular chess. I think if 960 becomes popular enough with masters and grandmasters, then I think tournaments with regular chess will be reduced. Regular chess tournaments would probably compete with 960 for the small amount of money made available to chess. I would not like that, personally. Oh, and it's inventor is a jerk.

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#51

Atos wrote:

furtiveking wrote:

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

HOW is chess altered by someone playing 960? Is 960 a different game than standard chess? yes. But, does someone playing it have any effect on standard chess? Not in the least.

They are different games, and you have not made any effort to answer my question that I've asked several times about how what one person plays effects a game that you play.

To be fair, there are different positions here. Some of us think that Chess 960 is just a different game, like pool. I think it has a lot more in common with chess than pool (which I also play, but i don't ask to play it on a chess site). In this sense, these people are maybe not mistaken to react as they do.

There's no question that it has more in common with standard chess than pool. BUT, that doesn't mean that the fact that someone plays a chess variant is "disgraceful".

hsbgowd

Jan 10, 2010

0

#52

tryst wrote:

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".

Do you not like 960 because of your opinion on Fischer, or you find it confusing to play or because in your opinion, chess is only standard chess?

The grandmasters who have learnt all openings by theory, play as though the middle game is their opening game. But 960, without opening theory, brings the element of confusion which makes it interesting right from start. If you dont like it, don play it. Simple. Why ask it to be removed?

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#53

tryst wrote:

Zerrogi wrote:

I fail to understand how adding a new layer to Chess insults it; rather, I find that it helps glorify the game even further. I actually enjoy the fact that book theory goes out the window for a bit of opening improvisation.

@Tryst: Despising the variant just for the maker is like saying the Xbox360 is an awful system because Microsoft's CEO has no hair. Its hilarious, but ridiculous.

Personally, I'd like to see BugHouse added

What is ridiculous is not only your silly analogy, but what you choose or are capable of reading. I will make it simple for you even though you may dispute that I have made it complicated: I don't like chess960, I like regular chess. I think if 960 becomes popular enough with masters and grandmasters, then I think tournaments with regular chess will be reduced. Regular chess tournaments would probably compete with 960 for the small amount of money made available to chess. I would not like that, personally. Oh, and it's inventor is a jerk.

Ahhhh, ok... now we get somewhere, now I can see where your line of logic goes, thank you. To this I would say, have you seen any evidence that chess 960 is reducing the overall popularity of standard chess at the highest levels? I don't think that there is any. Standard chess will remain the most popular type of chess played until such time as it is "solved", if it ever is (how else would all the folks making money writing opening theory books make money? :-) ). At that time... who knows, maybe since 960 is a LOT more difficult (impossible even?) to solve, it will be "the" chess to play, but until/unless that happens. I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Also, at our current level of chess, there will never be anything to worry about, folks on our level will never be able to play a perfect game of chess, even when a theoretical one is found.

Zerrogi

Jan 10, 2010

0

#54

tryst wrote:

Zerrogi wrote:

I fail to understand how adding a new layer to Chess insults it; rather, I find that it helps glorify the game even further. I actually enjoy the fact that book theory goes out the window for a bit of opening improvisation.

@Tryst: Despising the variant just for the maker is like saying the Xbox360 is an awful system because Microsoft's CEO has no hair. Its hilarious, but ridiculous.

Personally, I'd like to see BugHouse added

What is ridiculous is not only your silly analogy, but what you choose or are capable of reading. I will make it simple for you even though you may dispute that I have made it complicated: I don't like chess960, I like regular chess. I think if 960 becomes popular enough with masters and grandmasters, then I think tournaments with regular chess will be reduced. Regular chess tournaments would probably compete with 960 for the small amount of money made available to chess. I would not like that, personally. Oh, and it's inventor is a jerk.

I personally felt my analogy was quite clever, but whatever, I'm not here to dispute tastes in humor.

If I seem to have misinterpreted your posts regarding 960's effect on regular Chess's tourneys and funds, its probably because you didn't post anything about that in this thread. At all.

Let me clarify, I don't entirely disagree with you. Fischer was an awful person; I most certainly agree with this. Is Chess960 a bad game? No. Hence my very clever analogy. And it is clever.

If you're so worried about a variation soaking up Regular Chess's funds, worry more about BugHouse. It has actual tournaments.

tryst

Jan 10, 2010

0

#55

marvellosity wrote:

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

No, I'm baffled by pretty little, but this thread and you manage it.

Clearly you need chess960 explaining to you given your opinions on this thread.

None of the chess960 haters on this thread have yet to provide any evidence how chess960 is 'radically' different.

I am not managing this thread. I am making comments on this thread. If you start the game with a random back row instead of the same back row that has been played for hundreds of years, that would be considered a radical change. This so simple to comprehend that I'm hoping you have some clandestine point to your question that you've not yet disclosed.

Zerrogi

Jan 10, 2010

0

#56

AnthonyCG wrote:

Regular chess is already dying worldwide, but that's more of a money/corruption thing...

I've heard enough politics in Chess just from the USCF alone lol

furtiveking

Jan 10, 2010

0

#57

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

tryst wrote:

marvellosity wrote:

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.

Thanks for telling us what 960 is. I know I waited for you to explain it to me. The game is radically altered by 960. If you claim it is not, then you must be baffled by many things in life. If you wish to call people "shallow" because you walk around confused and baffled by dissenting opinions in a chess thread, then it is you being quite "odd" and "illogical".

No, I'm baffled by pretty little, but this thread and you manage it.

Clearly you need chess960 explaining to you given your opinions on this thread.

None of the chess960 haters on this thread have yet to provide any evidence how chess960 is 'radically' different.

I am not managing this thread. I am making comments on this thread. If you start the game with a random back row instead of the same back row that has been played for hundreds of years, that would be considered a radical change. This so simple to comprehend that I'm hoping you have some clandestine point to your question that you've not yet disclosed.

I think his point is that when you actually sit down and play a game of 960 though they may seem different at first glance, they aren't all that different. The thought process used to play is identical, basic strategic points (king safety, control of the center, etc.) are identical, and tactical considerations are identical. While I can see how someone might think that this is a "radical" change, there are plenty of similarities between the two games, and in how they are played.

Zerrogi

Jan 10, 2010

0

#58

furtiveking wrote:

I think his point is that when you actually sit down and play a game of 960 though they may seem different at first glance, they aren't all that different. The thought process used to play is identical, basic strategic points (king safety, control of the center, etc.) are identical, and tactical considerations are identical. While I can see how someone might think that this is a "radical" change, there are plenty of similarities between the two games, and in how they are played.

While I think having the back-row so different is indeed very radical, I think its still quite within reason because the pieces still move appropriately. 960 is appealing to me for the idea the player needs to assess the odd set-up and see its advantages and disadvantages, and use them to form a decent plan. I like the improvisation.

tryst

Jan 10, 2010

0

#59

Zerrogi wrote:

tryst wrote:

Zerrogi wrote:

I fail to understand how adding a new layer to Chess insults it; rather, I find that it helps glorify the game even further. I actually enjoy the fact that book theory goes out the window for a bit of opening improvisation.

@Tryst: Despising the variant just for the maker is like saying the Xbox360 is an awful system because Microsoft's CEO has no hair. Its hilarious, but ridiculous.

Personally, I'd like to see BugHouse added

What is ridiculous is not only your silly analogy, but what you choose or are capable of reading. I will make it simple for you even though you may dispute that I have made it complicated: I don't like chess960, I like regular chess. I think if 960 becomes popular enough with masters and grandmasters, then I think tournaments with regular chess will be reduced. Regular chess tournaments would probably compete with 960 for the small amount of money made available to chess. I would not like that, personally. Oh, and it's inventor is a jerk.

I personally felt my analogy was quite clever, but whatever, I'm not here to dispute tastes in humor.

If I seem to have misinterpreted your posts regarding 960's effect on regular Chess's tourneys and funds, its probably because you didn't post anything about that in this thread. At all.

Let me clarify, I don't entirely disagree with you. Fischer was an awful person; I most certainly agree with this. Is Chess960 a bad game? No. Hence my very clever analogy. And it is clever.

If you're so worried about a variation soaking up Regular Chess's funds, worry more about BugHouse. It has actual tournaments.

My main worry right now is to accidentally stumble across another one of your "clever" analogies that you are so proud of. And what I was referring to when I said you had not read my posts was that I liked chess the way it is. Not that I find Fischer's hair too thin to appreciate 960.

tryst

Jan 10, 2010

0

#60

hsbgowd wrote:

tryst wrote:

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".

Do you not like 960 because of your opinion on Fischer, or you find it confusing to play or because in your opinion, chess is only standard chess?

The grandmasters who have learnt all openings by theory, play as though the middle game is their opening game. But 960, without opening theory, brings the element of confusion which makes it interesting right from start. If you dont like it, don play it. Simple. Why ask it to be removed?

I never asked it to be removed.