Don't want 960

This is ridiculous. Go back just couple of posts and read. Chess pretty much as is has been played for centuries and much before 1880.

Thank you, Atos. You saved me some effort.

The game of chess has constantly evolved, with quite extraordinary rule changes.

Consider some of its Arab predecessors, with quite quaint rules in our eyes - down to your opponent being allowed to decide whether to swap around the King and Queen positions, before you make your first move ...

I'm sure there was a ruckus when that was no longer allowed. Likewise when the Queen had her power extended, and the King had his restricted. Etc.

I see that someone considers the "inventor of Chess 960 to be a jerk." So now we know who invented chess? That's sensational.

I have to agree with the poster who stated that opposition to Chess 960 comes from a lot of the rote memorizers who have been running lines through their heads from the moment they saw a chess board. And that's precisely what Chess 960 seeks to counter. Live with it. There will be a memorization version of chess, and then there will be a tactical version -- and Chess 960 is a wonderfully challenging game to play, once you try it.

Why not, because some people find this different game fun? What is wrong with finding another game fun, and wanting to play it as well?

Thank you Atos and Maradona for proving my point. I am not sure where 1880 and 130 years come from but is for sure not true and accurate.

Also Atos, Steinwitz's attitude is exactly one I am talking about. Ridiculous and annoying.

What is wrong w/ his attitude? He's right, some folks don't like the idea of playing with memorized openings (or at least not all the time). So, why is that so bad?

pper011 said:

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".

I agreed that it was not 130 years ago. I said I don't know if there has been any more recent changes than the example that I gave. However, I was more looking at the fact that you were against additions. The additions I mentioned were introduced to speed the game up. I not sure if speeding the game up was met with hostility or not.

Chess did not start out as it is played today.  It did not even have the same name.  The 'centuries old game' as you put it has slowly evolved through changes or being 'messed' with as again you put it.  I imagine someone like you kicked off every time someone wanted to try something different, for example, when it was decided that the bishop should be able to move more than three squares at a time, or the queen should be given the power of moving as many squares as she wants. And imagine the fuss when castling was introduced.  Perhaps you should complain about these 'new' additions to the game.  Why should the game stop evolving? And why should this website stop promoting its evolution? I enjoy chess 960 and omega chess but it doesn't mean I devalue classic chess.  

The wikipedia excerpt posted agrees with my statement, perhaps disagreeing with other sources I've read by a few decades. It states that the rules were not finalized until the 19th century. I never said people haven't played Chess as it is for centuries, I just said it wasn't the accepted standard. You'll note that when the queen move was originally proposed the game was called "Mad Queen Chess," certainly a derogatory term by people who found it a disgusting modification to the way Chess had been played for centures.

All this pettiness sure as sugar makes me want to organise a decent 960 Congress - I know a few pros who would love it !!

 Again this is the attitude I am talking about. I am now somehow "less worthy", "stupid" and "not thinker" because I do not like your precious chess 960. Get real.

Comparing minor changes made to make the SAME game better, to the completely ludicrous chess 960 which has nothing really to do with the real chess is, as I said already, quite disgraceful.

You can enjoy anything you want, but 960 is devaluing and ruining the beautiful game of real chess, like it or not. And should not be promoted and encouraged by the chess sites like this one. Go to 960 site and play there your little funny crippled game all you want, just leave us alone to play REAL chess and do not bother us with 960 nonsense.

I tried 960 for the first time during Christmas. Got a position generator - a friend and I set up a few random opening positions and played from these. We really enjoyed it - had lots of fun from being asked to think anew about the game from the first move; instead of just going through the first 18 tack-tack-tack-tack like machine guns.

And there were lots of new tactical challenges that we are convinced will help us in the classical game.

Since I've been accused of having an annoying attitude (not bad given it was my first post): as someone pointed out, the accepted starting position is one of the 960 ...

Years ago I played three-dimensional chess, on a three-tiered plastic see-through board. It took some getting used to moving in the vertical dimension, but that was also a nice challenge.

I'd shoot myself if my goal in chess was to memorize every variant of Ruy Lopez!

You see exactly what I am talking about. The 960 proponents are trying to make it looks like the chess is only about "memorizing every variation of Ruy Lopez" and nothing more, which is of course totally incorrect and sneaky.

Yet another reason why 960 should not be promoted.  Its proponents are devaluing and spreading lies about the real chess only to promote and push their little mockery of the game.

I would shoot myself if my goal is to tell lies about the great game in order to promote a bad copy of the real thing like 960.

Well there are certainly good things about 960, where you have to think of creative plans and tactics as early as move 1. But I dunno, for some reason there is something I really like about the familiarity of chess. It's like every game I feel wiser and wiser and you can still never use up all the possibilities in regular chess. I simply don't enjoy 960 positions as much as the regular setup.

You've over egged the pudding now and are clearly just having a laugh. I don't think that you believe what you are saying. Rather just trying to noise people up.

You just said that you don't like being insulted because you DON'T like Chess960, and then turned around and insulted people because the DO like Chess960. I am no longer sure whether you're a hypocrite or a troll.

I did not claim nor insinuate that you are 'less worthy' or 'stupid' I actually feel that you're being rather scathing of an idea put forward by someone who knew a lot about chess.  I was just putting forward my point of view.  I do not believe that chess is all about memorising openings espeacially at the level I play, so I still enjoy classic chess (and I find that basic study of the openings can be very interesting and enlightening) Yes maybe 960 is much more of radical change to chess than some of the others, but I do not believe that it devalues chess.  I think that it can be a good way of practising unfamiliar tactical positions.  I have not read anywhere exactly how it devalues chess and I would be interested to know why you believe this

Although there are some similarities, it's common sense that if in regular chess one can get into the same kind of middlegames over and over, but in 960 completely random pawn and piece structures, the two games are in fact radically different IMO. I guess it would depend on what level one is at.

EDIT: I'm not a 960 hater for the record although I probably wouldn't ever play it. I share Elubus' thoughts...

@Nuclearturkey ...

Completely random pawn and piece structures? So you haven't played 960?

The pawns are placed where they've always been placed, on the second rank, every single one of the eight pawns, in fact. The rules of movement are the same. The pieces end up in other starting locations, though you still have absolute familiarity with the board and set-up. And the pieces all obey the rules of chess.

It's just another starting configuration, and the purpose of it is to take the mind out of the memorization-cage it's in, and to let it be creative from the first move. The immense creativity of the games from the mid to late 1800s is a result of the game not having been locked down in theory which punished invention.

I'm for both, but if I had to choose between a game that allowed OTB creativity and invention, or one which required enormous memorization prior to any sensible play ... We have both ... I don't see the problem.

I think Chess960 is a joke as well, but I also agree it's ridiculous to throw a tantrum demanding that an option be provided to remove it.  Adding variants to the site already takes too much programming time away from glaring deficiencies in the regular product; I'd rather not see even MORE time spent pandering to the Outrage Brigade.

I haven't. But I thought it's common sense that if one is a decent standard in regular chess and can get into the same kind of Middle-Games regularly that playing 960 will be radically different for them. As from the 1st move there won't be much familiarity about the situations and vastly differing strategies will be called for with each game. Am I wrong?