(Poll) Do you think chess960 will ever replace classical chess at the very top l

Nope.

Yeah, it probably will, I hope.  I would play it more if my friends would actually be willing to take the time to roll the dice and do the set up, but they all complain that they can't play their favourite line the the stupid Sicilian Dragon or whatever that they have memorized.

960 is needed now more than ever and it still hasnt caught on. The arguement of it not catching on makes no sense because it hasnt caught on then, or even now.

-I say it should have caught on in the 80's
-You say it wasnt "invtented yet". (Citing Wikipedia release date)
-I say it wasnt invented yet, because it wasnt needed yet. (Citing amazing timing of release relative to Kasparov vs. Deep Blue)
-You say they couldnt have caught on to something that wasnt invented yet.
-I say even though it exists now, it still hasnt caught on.

I agree that it was pushed out in the 90's because of the rise of the computers. I dont think that the release date on Wikipedia is the entire truth of the matter, but it does offer simpler terms.

To me, the fact that Fisher was disgusted with chess early on and then later released 960 right before Kasparov vs. Deep Blue gives me more than enough reason to believe it existed way before it's date of release.

Angry Birds got downloaded 2 BILLION times. Number of chess players compared to this random silly game, only a few years old, is ridicioulously small compared to it.

Could have metioned any other big computer game, that will outsell chess vastly.

Point is just, chess is slowly disappearing from the radar of young people, and will only disappear more and more.

Yikes, such a harmless topic, yet so much harm done.

Anyway, back to the original question, at the top levels....  I have heard Karpov say that with 960 you lose a lot of the harmony of the game.  I understand that: the pieces are more are less where they should be, and they can all come out easily and attack the center, etc. In 960, you get a lot of knights blocking pawns you want to move, you get bishops blocked in, and so forth. Also, castling makes sense in regular chess, but very unharmonius in 960 by comparison.

Sub1000,

• Bobby Fischer was hardly playing chess in the 80's, he was hanging out with weird religious cults and being tortured in the Pasadena jail house.
• No one knew about 960 before 1996, I'm not just citing Wikipedia, you brought up Wiki, not me.  I remember being in my highschool chess club and playing it after the rules were published in Chess Life.
• Chess computers in the 80's and 90's sucked, there was no need for an alternative to chess because the computers were no where near powerful enough to make a difference.
• Deep Blue beating Kasparov was a one off unusual event at the time.  There is some controversy wether Deep Blue actually out played Garry or if some grand masters guided the computer behind the scenes.
• If you can find somewhere when Fischer said he invented 960 because of comptuers I'd like to hear about it.  He complained about the memorization of opening theories and how much he hated that but I don't remember him bringing up computers as a reason for 960.  (See my earlier point, computers at this time were practically worthless for opening theory, even Deep Blue used an opening book.)
• And my final point, your rating stinks.

No it isnt, and if you read my posts you would also know that. But since you apparently have problems reading posts longer than one or two lines you will have missed them.

well done man

Karpov is my favourite player

Consider this, only pawns move at the start of the game, classical setup

e4, b6, d4, g6

The minor pieces work on both sides, knights and bishops.

White has a classical setup, black a modern.

The critical aspect is SPACE, for me Fischer Random does not work due to insufficient space, the classical setup works on an 8x8 board but Fischer Random does not properly, positions can be awkward or cramped, you need to exchange a pair of pawns and a minor piece pair say BxN before it starts to feel right.

Sorry, I no longer play chess anymore, so will need to plug my game, for a reason.

I used to play my game with a chess GM OTB on a regular basis, once a week, we discussed Fischer Random many times, he said that about 10% of the initial setups are either lost for black or very unbalanced, this in particular is due to the bishops on the diagonals, you can develop and attack with one move.

He said that GMs do not like this inbalance in the setup, that favours white more than classical chess.

If the GMs are reluctant to play Fischer Random then regular players will not play it much

Regards

No.

Maybe Chess240, after having eliminated from the random mix those 960 positions that are too problematic for a decent game.

Never :)

Yes castling is weird in 960 :) There's something weird about being able to zap your king to the other end of the board.

Tactics trainer rating reset. 5W-1L on a random free account.

Anyone can do that.

When you've played at least 100 Blitz/Bullet games on this site you may talk about how bad my rating is.

Should I go make a free account, use the chess.com computer to play for me, hit 2000 after 10 games and then talk about how bad your rating is?

Please, child.

Say what you mean, this passive agressive hinting that I am cheating is childish.

No. But, one can simply reroll free accounts until they have a 5 win streak. And in standard, cheating is easy.

When you've played 100 games of a time control that makes cheating hard and have not reset your tactics trainer, maybe then you'd have a right to say how bad someones rating is.

Do 5 tactics trainer problems on 10th free account; rating 1700.
Play 5 rates games on 10th free account; rating 1700.

It's that easy. That's why I cant take you seriously. :)

Sounds like you have experience with this.

It's easy for me to get a 1600 rating because when I stopped playing OTB I was around 1900 USCF.  If you're going to accuse me of cheating you'd better have some evidence.

Maybe if you played slower time controls you might actually get better.

I dont need experience at cheating to know how easy it would be to fluff a rating online.

-A free account has no accountability.
-Low number of games is not enough of a sample size to determine skill.
-Grandiose claims of IRL accomplishments are meaningless to me.
-Your personal attacks are laughable.

If you were a premium account that has ratings across all time controls that are within +/- 200 of each other with at least 100 games played of each you may have a reason to talk about my terrible rating.

You just seem to fall into that crowd of people on this site with suspect ratings who just want to fight about something. You cant even argue without resorting to personal attacks.

I give up. You win.

Having a diamond next to your name doesn't make your moves or arguments any better and you can refute neither of mine.  I only offer my USCF rating as an explaination how someone could create an account and win games and was hardly grandiose.  Chess 960 didn't exist in the 80's so you accuse me of cheating.  Grow up.

I couldn't disagree more. Believe me, I love my technology, but there's nothing quite like playing chess on a real, physical board against a human being sitting 3 feet across from you. Immersive, photorealistic video games are a lot of fun, but then again so is Pac-Man. And Angry Birds. And target-shooting. And bean-bag-toss. And cooking. And painting. And playing the guitar. And chess. It just depends on what you personally enjoy and what you are in the mood for.

You might really be that stupid, but im just going to give you the benefit of doubt and say you're trolling.

-You know that the 960 argument and your invalid rating argument were separate.
-You know that ratings only came into question AFTER you said my "rating stinks".

Go play 100 bullet games and we'll compare that rating against your 6 game, 1600 rating in standard, and "1900 USCF rating".

Surely you can be at least 1500 over 100 bullet games, right? ;)

See you in a month. We've detracted from this thread enough. I'm done.

No, your rating is relevant to your argument, it is not seperate, that's why I included in my list, a ~1000 blitz player talking about how chess should be replaced with 960 is just laughable.

I'm not going to play a hundered games of bullet because I don't enjoy it.

You cannot refute anything I've said about 960 and the relevant topic in this thread so you continue to babble nonsensically.