Don't want 960
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
Marvellosity, you said this:
"None of the chess960 haters on this thread have yet to provide any evidence how chess960 is 'radically' different."
Then, when I pointed out the obvious, you said this:
"Changing the placement of pieces on the back row seems to be one of the least radical changes possible to chess."
I sure continuing with gradations of the word "radical" is quite pointless.
tryst wrote:
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.
Look, tryst, I like Regular Chess, too. In fact, I have more games of it than I have of 960. All I'm saying is it deserves its merit as a decent variant due to its unique and catchy style, no matter who created it.
Its like loving the puppy of a vicious pit bull; just because the parent was bad, doesn't mean the puppy will be.
marvellosity wrote:
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.
How could you make a change that you WOULDN'T consider radical? You couldn't change the rules of piece movement, that would definitely be far more radical. Playing on a different size board is way more radical too. Changing the placement of pieces on the back row seems to be one of the least radical changes possible to chess.
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Zerrogi wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
Especially not on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to chess. It should be about chess, not some new made up nonsense game.
an_arbitrary_name wrote:
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.
Great post.
Like it or not, chess960 will become more and more popular over the next years.
Jan 10, 2010
0
#69
ppera011 said:
It is especially annoying to receive invitations and messages about it on the chess site when you are trying to play chess.
Hello,
I don't play 960 and don't seem to be littered with 960 messages and invites. How much messages/invites do you receive? I'm curious to know how much of an annoyance it is. Say in a typical week, how much time is spent on this annoyance?
Also, I don't know anything about the damage that 960 has done to chess. Can you give me examples of the damage it has already done, and reasons why you think that this will increase and damage chess in the future?
ppera011 wrote:
Zerrogi wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
Especially not on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to chess. It should be about chess, not some new made up nonsense game.
but Chess960 is a Chess game, thus...
staggerlee wrote:
What ridiculous statements from all of you. How can you be so offended just by the existence of a fun chess variant? If you don't like it, don't play it. If you're offended by its existence, get your head checked.
+1
Calm down there kids. Now run along and play.
ppera011 wrote:
Zerrogi wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
Especially not on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to chess. It should be about chess, not some new made up nonsense game.
You keep repeating yourself.
I know the variations of Marshall's attack until about move 20. But this is is not enough to play it against a titled player. Still less to play it against a program. But if I memorized it until move 35 I really don't think I would be 'playing' chess any more, I would be just repeating variations.
On the other hand I could try to be 'original' and instead of 1. ...e5 play 1... g5 but we all know this is crap don't we ? Theoretically chess has infinite possibilites but the number of reasonable moves (not mentioning strong moves) is limited in every position. GM theory has come pretty close to draining this already and programs will go further.
ppera011 wrote:
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
The chess world as is has only been around for 130 years, not centuries. And it got there by a centuries long process of modifying what was originally a much different game.
Atos wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Zerrogi wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
Especially not on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to chess. It should be about chess, not some new made up nonsense game.
You keep repeating yourself.
I know the variations of Marshall's attack until about move 20. But this is is not enough to play it against a titled player. Still less to play it against a program. But if I memorized it until move 35 I really don't think I would be 'playing' chess any more, I would be just repeating variations.
On the other hand I could try to be 'original' and instead of 1. ...e5 play 1... g5 but we all know this is crap don't we ? Theoretically chess has infinite possibilites but the number of reasonable moves (not mentioning strong moves) is limited in every position. GM theory has come pretty close to draining this already and programs will go further.
Interesting attitude. Another annoying thing about 960 is an "holier than thou" attitude of its proponents. Go figure.
I kept answering your guys posts, so if you keep repeating yourself I will keep repeating myself. It is as simple as that.
ichabod801 wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
The chess world as is has only been around for 130 years, not centuries. And it got there by a centuries long process of modifying what was originally a much different game.
This is not true.
ppera011 wrote:
Atos wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Zerrogi wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why would you make a change at all. Why is change needed? That is what I do not understand. Why mess with perfectly fine, centuries old traditional and great game just to make some silly ridiculous new mockery of the great old game. To me doing that is disgraceful. Why you need to ruin the great traditional game just to make some "new" silly thing for the sake of change.
Its not like Regular Chess is going away. Chess960 is just another variant to try out IN ADDITION to enjoying Regular Chess. I'd like to think of it as expanding the Chess world as we know it.
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
Especially not on a site that is supposed to be dedicated to chess. It should be about chess, not some new made up nonsense game.
You keep repeating yourself.
I know the variations of Marshall's attack until about move 20. But this is is not enough to play it against a titled player. Still less to play it against a program. But if I memorized it until move 35 I really don't think I would be 'playing' chess any more, I would be just repeating variations.
On the other hand I could try to be 'original' and instead of 1. ...e5 play 1... g5 but we all know this is crap don't we ? Theoretically chess has infinite possibilites but the number of reasonable moves (not mentioning strong moves) is limited in every position. GM theory has come pretty close to draining this already and programs will go further.
Interesting attitude. Another annoying thing about 960 is an "holier than thou" attitude of its proponents. Go figure.
I kept answering your guys posts, so if you keep repeating yourself I will keep repeating myself. It is as simple as that.
I really don't see where you find this attitude. Wasn't it you who started this thread with the proposal that 960 (which is not even available in Live Chess here) should be removed from the site ?
Jan 10, 2010
0
#77
ppera011 wrote:
ichabod801 wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
The chess world as is has only been around for 130 years, not centuries. And it got there by a centuries long process of modifying what was originally a much different game.
This is not true.
I know that castling was invented to speed the game up. I'm not sure if there has been any other more recent changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling
The current version of castling was established in France in 1620 and England in 1640
Jan 10, 2010
0
#78
I think that the first pawn move of 1 or 2 moves may also of been an addition. Don't know this for certain.
ppera011 wrote:
ichabod801 wrote:
ppera011 wrote:
Why do you need "addition"? I do not want "addition". I like the chess world as is and as it has been for centuries and do not want to "expand" it with bad and unnecessary "additions".
The chess world as is has only been around for 130 years, not centuries. And it got there by a centuries long process of modifying what was originally a much different game.
This is not true.
Sure it is. Chess as we know it was not the commonly accepted way to play until about 1880. While most of the rules we use were in place earlier than that, but up until the late 1800s there was disagreement about many of the details of en passant and castling.
I'm assuming you're not disagreeing with every Chess historian as to it being derived from the Indian game of Chaturanga.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess
(excerpt)
The game, as played during the early Middle Ages, was slow, with many games lasting for days.[13] Some variations in rules began to change the shape of the game in by 1300 AD.[43] A notable, but initially unpopular, change was the ability of the pawn to move two places in the first move instead of one.[43]
In Europe some of the pieces gradually got new names:
- Fers: "queen", because it starts beside the King.
- Aufin: "bishop", because its two points looked like a bishop's mitre; In French fou; and others. Its Latin name alfinus was reinterpreted many ways.
Attempts to make the start of the game run faster to get the opposing pieces in contact sooner included:
- Pawn moving two squares in its first move. This led to the en passant rule: a pawn placed so that it could have captured the enemy pawn if it had moved one square forward was allowed to capture it on the passed square. In Italy, the contrary rule (passar battaglia = "to pass battle") applied: a pawn that moved two squares forward had passed the danger of attack on the intermediate square. It was sometimes not allowed to do this to cover check.[23]
- King jumping once, to make it quicker to put the king safe in a corner. (This eventually led to castling.)
- Queen once moving two squares with jump, diagonally or straight. This right was sometimes extended to a new queen made by promoting a pawn.
- The short assize. ("assize" = "sitting".) Here the pawns started on the third rank; the queens started on d3 and d6 along with the queens' pawns; the players arranged their other pieces as they wished behind their pawns at the start of the game. This idea did not endure.[17]
 |
|||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||
Check by pinned piece
Other sporadic variations in the rules of chess included:
- Ignoring check from a piece which was covering check, as some said that in theory (in this example), B x K would allow R x K in reply.[17]
[edit] Origins of the modern game
The queen and bishop remained relatively weak until[13] between 1475 AD and 1500 AD in Spain or Portugal or France or Italy, the queen's and bishop's modern moves started and spread, making chess close to its modern form. This form of chess got such names as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess" (Italian alla rabiosa = "in the mad manner").[6] This led to much more value being attached to the previously minor tactic of pawn promotion.[17]Checkmate became easier and games could now be won in fewer moves.[43][44] These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe and in Spain,[45][46] with the exception of the rules about stalemate, which were finalized in the early nineteenth century.[47]
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.
How could you make a change that you WOULDN'T consider radical? You couldn't change the rules of piece movement, that would definitely be far more radical. Playing on a different size board is way more radical too. Changing the placement of pieces on the back row seems to be one of the least radical changes possible to chess.