17870 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Quote from http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113:
Let’s wrap up this “Bisik-Bisik” session with one last question: What do you think about the future of Fischer Random, Seirawan Chess or any other types of chess variant?
I have always liked the idea of choosing a few decent positions. And, I don’t think you need more than 15 to 20, out of the 960 possible random chess positions, many of which violate our sense for normal chess geometry. Any change of the position is a challenge, but 10 to 15 to 20 positions can be chosen, and I believe that in the future, every year, we should start with a new position. Again, it should just be one position. I feel an insult if players should start with something that is totally ridiculous, and you have three minutes to prepare… No, I mean, come on, chess is also about some research. You don’t want to have the same extensive thing, fine. But, you have one year of playing one position, which means that players can actually get adjusted and they could do a little bit of research. So at least you have five, six opening moves that are theory now and then you go on to another position. But, if you just want to eliminate everything and call it purity – no, it is not purity, it’s nonsense. So, again, there is some sense in it, but you have to be reasonable.
To me it sounds like "I agree to change, but let's change nothing". Wouldn't you say that the world of chess would have beed a lot more spectacular and spontaneous if only chess 960 existed? I mean, where's the fun in playing an opponent who spent the last month analyzing some opening sidelines with Fritz/Rybka? Is chess just about rewarding hard work?
I agree almost totally with Kasparov's position. My only adjustment would be to change the position every 2 years to coincide with a new Candidates Cycle for the World Championship. Even with strong engines, I don't think we can get anywhere close to exhausting a starting position in less than 10 years. (We got about 100 good years out of the classical starting postion.)
Many players enjoy preparations to try and get positions they like. It's a part of the game and a part of chess culture. Desire for spectacular & spontaneous chess is also a part of chess culture. Kasparov's suggestion is an excellent one to promote a balance between those aspects. Imagine FIDE implements Kasparov's suggestion. Theory hounds will cry foul, and Classical Chess tournaments will continue to be held, using the current starting position. 960 enthusiasts will argue that the change did not go far enough, and 960 tournaments will continue to be held. And the chess world will be richer for having all 3 types of play available.
I'm afraid as long as selling so many books and DVD-s on classical opening theories remains a business, there's not much hope for 960 to gain space in competitive form on GM level. Why else are there so few 960 competitions? I'm sure it's not because active masters would not be eager to participate, especially the young ones, who's creativity and open-mindedness has not (yet) been surpressed by established chess education.
Many of the starting positions in chess 960 are a total mess. In some cases White get's a bigger opening advantage than usual if Black has an unguarded pawn which can be immediately attacked. Also harmonious development often gives way to convoluted untangling of the pieces.
Old topic, but I didn't see it before so I'll post :p
To a beginner, I suppose it only makes sense that chess openings be totally random and the players be totally clueless as early as move 2.
But I think Kasparov is right, research is part of the game, especially for professional players. And as he said they woudln't have time to develop much theory anyway.
Where's the fun in playing an opponent who has worked hard to develop his openings? The fun is you've also worked hard and you get to see whose analysis and preparation is better... I mean, that's a big part of what chess is even at the amateur level.
You mean theοritician's and computer's analysis preparation...
Well, only an idiot would memorize lines his computer gave him for the opening. Or I should say... a weak player who doesn't know any better. We're talking theory for the first 5 moves? Computers would help look at the middlegame positions you get into but they won't develop GM level openings.
Theoriticians, sure, but what theoritician is going to share his secrets instead of use them himself. And what non-pro theoritician is going to work hard enough to outpace the GMs who make a living off of chess?
What is Chess Mentor and why this new forum?
by ChessPapajan 2 minutes ago
Tactics trainer by theme
by Diakonia 4 minutes ago
Collectors´Correspondence Chess Club
by MakkeMus 11 minutes ago
5/3/2016 - The Slip
by Chessman007James 14 minutes ago
Join This Group
by Piman123supreme 28 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal World Champions
by hamerkop 28 minutes ago
How do you study pawn structures?
by Diakonia 29 minutes ago
Kasparov is slaughtering Nakamura and So.
by SmyslovFan 29 minutes ago
How to study several chess books
by Diakonia 34 minutes ago
How fast should I castle?
by ChessOath 49 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!