@Sarg0n said in #19:
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/an-argument-for-making-chess960-the-standard-for-chess?page=3@Sarg0n said in #19:
> No. Reminder:
>
>
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/letter-to-the-editor-nic-concerning-chess960?page=1Greetings, Sarg0n.
I thought that the article was very well written, but I disagree with your position against moving 960 to the forefront.
I'm not sure if you'd like to debate the pros and cons with me?
1. OP did a great job highlighting the point of:
"There is precedent to improve chess by making 960 the official ruleset. There is no reason it can't be done."
And this is actually an absolute position that can't really be argued. OP is correct. Logistically, there is nothing stopping the chess world from changing the rules of official chess to reflect the 960 ruleset.
Stating, "No. A reminder," and then posting your article, is completely insufficient and does nothing to counter the point that OP was making.
* OP is perfectly correct. Logistically, there is nothing stopping the chess world from making the 960 ruleset the new and official format. *
-
2. I can testify, myself, as one of the biggest chess enthusiasts which I'm aware of, that one could spend decades barely giving 960 a glance...and have absolutely no idea what one is missing! I used to think that I'd never play 960 because the classical ruleset was already challenging enough.
I've never really held much cause for Bobby Fischer, and I used to ignorantly sneer at 960.
But I had no idea what I was actually looking at.
"That just looks like a broken piece of glass!" - Sarg0n (paraphrased)
"Whoa...that's a (960) diamond!" - Those That Know
If it's the case that I could easily, for a very long time, flippantly disregard 960 as some kind of an "unnecessary and superfluous variant", and disregard it on my biases that it's not "the pure version" or "is the unfamiliar version" or "is something new"...then I can't be the only one...and none of these are a valid argument against the beneficial effects which 960 contributes and what it corrects.
* Just because most of us have all kinds of conscious and unconscious biases, doesn't mean that those biases should 'get a vote' or that they are synonymous with 'best practice'...particularly in the face of those who acknowledge these biases and testify that these biases don't necessarily represent 'best practice', and that they actually hinder 'best practice' and 'best effect'. *
-
3. If we imagine that there was a savant GM out there who could do an amazing job memorizing computer lines, then it's not a stretch to understand that such a chess player could use this unintelligent, uncreative, accident of birth, to do very well at chess, even though they're not nearly as capable of discovering, understanding, formulating, and creating brilliant chess moves when left to their own capacity for intellect and chess brilliance.
I mean, if the only time someone is able to formulate brilliance is when they plagiarize it from a capable and actual authentic chess genius...then that should give the chess world pause...and we should, most definitely, examine this matter and see if we could somehow formulate a ruleset that would disqualify such instances from being regarded as 'the best chess players in the world'.
* When it comes to the matter of creating brilliant moves/ideas/plans/themes/narratives/fundamental considerations/tactical arguments...we find that opening preparation has nothing to do with it...if it did...then we would not find any deviation between the top ten 960 players, and the top ten on the FIDE list as it currently stands. Should we find such a discrepancy, it would, absolutely, speak to the chess players' ability to understand and create brilliant chess, ad hoc, without any kind of unintelligent and uncreative savant processes having anything to do with it...and 960 would, therefore, be the better objective benchmark and measure of chess brilliance and creative, unabated raw, chess talent. *
_
4. Some of us, who have discovered the benefits of 960, consider the classical variant to be "Poser Chess".
As far as I'm aware, this accusation has never been made in the reverse. It's interesting that this would be the case.
* 960 has never been called "poser chess" because it's the last thing that people would think to call it.
It was only a few weeks ago when I was made aware that Bobby's sentiments were the same.
He, too, made mention that 960 cuts to the heart of the core of what chess is actually about, and that it better exemplifies the spirit of chess than the current variant ruleset. *
-
5. One of the things that made OP's post significant, is that the OP effectively cancels anyone's ability to use: "Classical is the way it is" as any kind of an argument for the ruleset in it's current format, or against the 960 ruleset.
It is a fallacy of 'begging the question'.
It is an 'is-ought' fallacy.
This is where our chess greats, such as Emanuel Lasker, have correctly diagnosed that while we can make word salad and throw all kinds of different ideas at the wall, which reflect our biases and blindspots, and the biases and blindspots of the judges who will vote on the "winner" of the debate...chess is not one such a forum.
The judge is absolute, and arguing fallacy results in the objective loss of the game.
Staking the game on "No I'm not. You are," doesn't work in chess unless it's true.
Staking the game on "Your point is invalid," doesn't work in chess, unless it's true.
Staking the game on the integrity of one's position doesn't work well in chess, unless that integrity is objectively present.
* The question of "How can we improve chess?" is not best answered by citing the facts of 'how things are' as any kind of evidence or points. It's a non-sequitur. Your article was rife with this fallacy. *
-
6. Everyone knows that if they did a Queen's Gambit Part II, and they had Beth Harmon feature as taking on the 960 ruleset, and where they listed all of the many valid upsides and pros to the 960 ruleset, people would immediately flock towards it and they would never look back.
- Hey, Chessworld...remember that time that the WC featured 12 consecutive draws and they had to settle the matter with a tie-breaker format that didn't seem equitable? Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...remember that time where you spent a few weeks bemoaning and complaining about the drawish and boring state of 21st century chess? Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...remember that time you were convinced that you were a better chess player, but your opponents have decades of experience and 10s of 1000s of games under their belt, to where they can just see exactly where and why you're deficient in your opening...but somewhere...you know that you're actually the better chess player if only you could get around the insignificant technicality that they've played many moer thousands of games than you? Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...what if the most brilliant, creative, and intelligent chess player isn't in the top 10 because they just don't have good clarity when it comes to the computer study of openings? Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...what if there was a ruleset that best measured, objectively, which player is most capable of creating the best and most brilliant chess? Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...how many of you would ever compete in weight-lifting? 99% of you haven't even considered that question because, effectively, your genetics disqualify that option. But what if there was a way we could handicap for genetics? What if there was a way where we could disqualify and nullify a person's physical ability, and simply measure their drive and their resolve regarding the matter of "Who can try the hardest? Who can exert the most energy?" Yeah. 960 resolves that.
- Hey, Chessworld...imagine that you're relatively new to the game...and we can nullify the 2-3-4-5-6 decades of subconscious experience and headstart which your opponent has...and impose a ruleset that will objectively measure which of you is the better chess player? < - - - (If this was a theme in 'Queen's Gambit Part II'...the 960 search lobby would look COMPLETELY different. The Queen's Gambit quadrupled the amount of chess players, overnight. Therefore, if Part II focused on 960, it could instantly animate the 960 ruleset with the majority of the chess world in a way where we'd never go back. Given this fact, the question of 'how few people there are in the 960 lobby' is completely void of any meaning.)
Yeah. That's what 960 does for chess.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. I'm sure that there are many more.
* It should read: "The 960 ruleset is where mosquitos can bathe with elephants." *
* What the chess world currently thinks it likes and what it thinks works best, and what it actually likes and what actually works best, is probably 2 different things. As OP rightly pointed out, if this wasn't true, pawns would still only move up one, and we wouldn't be castling our kings. And the same point stands, no differently, if we're talking about implementing a 960 ruleset.*
* Awareness is a huge aspect. Impression is a huge aspect. Influence is a huge aspect. Resistance to change is a huge aspect. But these things don't speak to the matter of 'ought' or efficacy. And there is little doubt that 960 could be made significant and official if properly packaged and presented to the chess world...and that the chess world would be much better for it. *
-
7. Classical chess is a monolith in the chess world, and it can't be denied that it ought be, and that there is much value in classical chess and within the thorough study of openings, and even within the computer study of openings. There is a wealth of history and evolution. This can't be denied. However, this isn't an 'either or' proposition.
I agree that there is no good reason to do away with the classical variant; and I agree that 960 can reach to the core of chess in a way that the current ruleset can't.
* I agree that there is no good reason to do away with the wealth of chess that the classical variant provides. But there would be nothing stopping us from sometimes having tournaments where we feature the 'classical variant' in honour of our roots...while we shift the focus to a ruleset that better reflects a chess players skill, understanding, creativity, and ability to create chess brilliance. *
-
8. Imagine the opposite. Imagine that chess started off as 960 and then, decades later, Sarg0n argues that we should stick with the RNBKQBNR setup...and that this should be the only single setup that the chess world acknowledges and plays.
In that reality, undoubtedly, Sarg0n version 2.0 would be arguing that 960 doesn't need any changes.
In addition, however, he'd be able to argue a whole host of salient rationales for why 960 is much more 'to the point', and in the spirit of chess, than exercising some kind of dogmatic fidelity to the RNBQKBNR setup.
* 'How things are' has nothing to do with 'what's best'. This was OP's point. And it's correct. We've continuously changed for the better, and there is no reason that 960 won't be the next ruleset which we use to improve the game, and more accurately measure a chess player's level of skill, understanding, ability, intelligence, creativity, and brilliance.*
-
9. You know...maybe if the viewers could watch live and have the players annotate all of the lines that they looked into and prepared...and explain why they're making certain moves instead of others...and actually have an informative experience...where all of the different opening prep is made plain and public...and it's all exposed and featured as a part of the coverage...where even if we find 12 rounds of consecutive draws it's still an enthralling experience in classical chess...and where 99.9% of the viewers actually get to know what they're looking at.
That might be one thing.
But the reality is that there is so much talk of "boring draw" online, and so many people who study nothing but the computer evaluation of a position...that this whole entire matter of GMs covertly out-prepping their opponents...is roughly on plane with adults telling jokes that toddlers do not understand...and where 99.9% of the chess world is that toddler.
960 annihilates that and basically makes 100% of the coverage transparent and 'value-added' as far as the spectator is concerned, while simultaneously serving as a much more objective benchmark as to "who is the most capable chess player, with the most understanding of chess, and who is best able to exemplify chess-intelligence".
* No need to spend the first hour of every game under some ambiguous and secretive veil of "this is their prep". Everything is clinically analyzed from move one. No ambiguity. No big 20 move mystery variations.
* We celebrate novelty in chess. There are very good reasons for that. Nothing is more novel than 960. *
* We celebrate novelty in chess. There are very good reasons for that. Nothing is more novel than 960. *
* We celebrate novelty in chess. There are very good reasons for that. Nothing is more novel than 960. *
-
10. 960 is not like any other variant! If you want to play crazyhouse, it takes a long time to shift the brain to play that game. Then, when you return to the classical variation, you have to shift your brain back.
960 is actually a wonderful tactics trainer which plugs in, seamlessly, with the classical variant.
You can play 960 all day long...and when you get back to the classical variant, it only makes you stronger.
960 is actually a great way to break that myopic perspective which is the bane of chess players.
If Fischer's claims about 960 are valid, if the points I've made here are valid...then no..."960 isn't just another variant." It is THE variant, and the classical RNBKQBNR variant is the one that deserves the slur: "Just another variant."
* Sometimes when I play 960 and move back to classical, the RNBQKBNR setup looks completely fresh and I'm able to actually play good, creative, original, and sensible moves that all make sense...regardless of all that "by heart" experience which can be counterproductive and can sometimes detract from the ability to play creatively. *
-
I'm sure I'm forgetting an additional half dozen pros for 960, but this is a good start.
-
YOU SAID:
"However, nothing spectacular has happened and 960 remained a random occurrence."
If (the lack of) one Netflix special is the only thing that makes this statement true...then that statement of fact speaks for itself.
-
"Yes, we all know that Magnus Carlsen is tired of our venerable ordinary chess unlike the vast majority of aficionados worldwide. Indeed, there are some fiery supporters of Fischer and his variant on every level, yet I have to disagree wholeheartedly with their missionary attitude."
According to many of us who enjoy 960, we originally turned a blind eye to its many gifts and benefits.
Ultimately, we were tired of the venerable and ordinary chess, we just didn't know.
But more importantly and to the point...we all have realized that '960' is much more deserving of the terms "venerable" and "ordinary".
960 seems to be the most chessiest chess that ever chessed.
Others are free to disagree, but, as stated, there are a plethora of reasons for why that is, and none of them speak to the validity of 960 or what it contributes and corrects.
-
"Why is learning and repeating openings considered undesirable?"
It's not. This is a strawman.
The point that's been made, and the point that stands, is that opening study is superfluous in regards to one's capacity to formulate ad hoc brilliance and creativity on the chessboard, and that it obfuscates the issue and the matter of "who's the best chess player" by including this matter of computer opening prep and the subsequent 12 rounds of consecutive draws with unfair tie-breaks.
If we want to know who's best at spelling words, algebraic equations have no place in that spelling bee.
Likewise, if we want to know who's the best mathematician, we don't have sections which test for literacy on the exams.
960 is a beautiful equalizer which seamlessly annihilates everything that doesn't have to do with a chess player's ability to understand and create brilliance, and to outplay their opponent.
It's very interesting that a small segment of the chess world is afraid of it.
When chess players saw Magnus offer a poisoned piece and trap Hikaru's queen right out of the opening...we understood that we were witnessing chess brilliance. It was highly creative, intuitive, original, and it spoke exclusively to Magnus' ability to play good chess. Not only is this all that the game of chess' ruleset needs, it's easily argued that it's all that it should reflect.
-
"Knowing endgames by heart is regarded as a sign of true mastery but apparently this does not apply to the very beginning of every game."
"Knowing ______ by heart" is the whole point.
How does 'knowing by heart' reflect one's level of chess-intelligence, skill, and ability to prove chess brilliance?
Who is demonstrating more creative brilliance? Those who author the textbooks, or the students who need to learn and regurgitate what others have written? This is not a trivial point! If and/or when 960 takes the main stage, this point, right here, will be it's biggest driver. It is extremely difficult to talk around this point, or to argue that the the student ought be held in higher regard than the author.
Again, we can definitely have the discussion for what 'standing on the shoulders' offers the chess world in terms of the opening study of the classical variant...but there is no good reason not to focus on "who can more brilliantly write a better textbook" ... especially when we have a ruleset that can much more effectively quantify and measure that exact thing.
960 focuses on measuring a chess player's ability to manufacture brilliance.
Sarg0n, I completely understand why seasoned veterans, like yourself, are so completely vested in opening prep...but I suspect that if the 300% of newcomers to chess in the past few years ever got wind of a critical, competent, and clinical analysis of what 960 offers the sport...you, and your opening prep, might be the ones needing to look for tournaments which feature your classical variant.
I repeat. You are one Netflix special away from having your (non) argument disqualified.
More directly to your question, endgame study can't be avoided, opening theory can.
Also, why should "knowing by heart" afford an advantage...especially when 'knowing by heart' obfuscates the issue of brilliance and replaces it with some kind of an unintelligent, uncreative, plastic, and robotic process?
Why shouldn't we mitigate this matter of "knowing by heart" and just measure unabated raw chess talent, instead?
-
"Or is the ubiquitous fear of being outprepared at home to blame for?"
Once again. When we watch Magnus offer Hikaru a poisoned rook for his trapped queen...we understand that chess brilliance has nothing to do with the RNBQKBNR setup.
I've seen many thousands of comments chastising "the drawish and boring nature of chess" in live streams.
If in the middle of those comments we could interject an alternate universe where 960 was considered the original and classical variant, and the RNBKQBNR variant was the anomaly, and they could watch Magnus trap Hikaru's queen with a poisoned rook...they would all, 100%, boo and hiss at the RNBQKBNR variant, and they would demand that we never do away with the only ruleset which best reflects the chessiest chess that ever chessed, which everyone actually loves about the sport.
Sarg0n, if you're not the one who's afraid...if you don't need to rely on the many 1000s of games in your experience/habit/subconscious/reflex/"by heart"...if you're actually deserving of being nearly titled...then step up to 960 and show us what YOU can do on the chess board!
What kind of books can YOU write? What kinds of things can YOU write about?
Right now, your 1000s of games and decades at the chess board is obfuscating if you're actually, objectively, capable of brilliant chess...compared to a newcomer without all of that "by heart", robotic, and empirical rhetoric.
It's completely clear...it's likely the case that you are afraid that...like Hikaru...you'd have taken that poisoned rook and lost your queen. And, if many 1000s of games in the different openings of the RNBQKNBR variation help you hide the fact that you're not really that good of a chess player...and that you fall for those kinds of traps...and are incapable of creating them yourself...then it becomes fairly clear who is actually afraid...and why it is that you protest so vehemently against 960
I understand your vested interest and bias to the RNBKQBNR variant, and it's obvious that you're the one who is afraid of an even playing field.
-
"Most players like consistency and a scientific approach defying chance or luck, in fact they derive their joy exactly from that aspect."
This is actually a case in favour of 960 and it is a case against this classical RNBQKBNR variant which we play.
We want to know who the better chess player is.
We don't care who the better chess player is + years of experience and ability to memorize.
Let's just get the best clinical and scientific measurement of unabated chess brilliance and ability.
960 best speaks to this point.
If you're a brilliant chess player, 960 will prove it.
If you're a poser, 960 will prove that, too.
There is no reason for most people to be scared of classical chess.
But there might be every reason for you to fear 960.
-
"They have their own frequent openings cultivated during their entire lifetime thus resembling a personal religion. Feeling lost in the complexity they do not want to tidy up an accidental mess time-consumingly in every single game and steer into familiar paths at the next opportunity which constitutes the point of Fischer Chess actually."
To which the reply is:
If you're the better chess player, then line up 960 and prove it.
Other than that, your opening prep remains akin to a pacifier or safety blanket...which you use to obfuscate your inability to employ the spirit of chess and to prove chess brilliance on the board, and - on - an - even - playing - field.
(Also, I'd like it on the record that I'm only arguing this as a counter-point against your accusation about 960 advocates "fearing" opening preparation.
The difference is that in the context of your argument, it speaks nothing to the merit of 960 and serves as an ad hominem, but in my argument, it highlights that if you can't thrive at 960, and if you depend on your opening preparation to keep you from the jaws of a proficient chess player's intellect, then that fact speaks for itself.
Also, I would add that it's not really "YOUR" opening prep...but your ability to mimic and apply the different tricks and traps that OTHER chess players have come up with...which is...again...where we can see that 960 is the best tool to objectively measure a chess player's objective skill and ability.)
-
"The driving force of improvement is both repetition as well as the collection of small chunks of knowledge in contrast to dealing with completely arbitrary stuff time and again."
Whoa!! What you're calling "arbitrary stuff" serves as a much more accurate benchmark measure of 'who is better capable of chess brilliance, understanding, creativity, and chess-intelligence' than the automatic grooves that playing 1000s of French/Sicilian/Ruy leaves entrenched in the mind!
Imagine a shell game.
You walk up to the hustler and he asks you "Which shell hides the pea?"
And you may use all of the clues available to deduce which shell the pea is under.
Perhaps he's looking at one more than the others?
Perhaps he's looking at the others more than the one?
Maybe there is this tell?
Maybe there is that tell?
After some time, you use all of your brilliant skills of deduction and understanding to deduce that it must be the middle shell, and you turn it over and you're correct.
That, right there, we can say measures one's ability to discern the reality of a situation.
Now imagine that he lines them up and hides the pea again...but this time under the left shell.
Again, the process is repeated and estimated correctly.
Now. Let's say that there is someone who can deduce and understand reality to such an extreme degree that they're able to guess correctly 10/10 times.
And let's say, on the other hand, that someone else has seen this process so many times that they've memorized that "the first time it's in the centre, then he puts it under the left side, and then under the right, and then back under the left, and then on the fifth time it's back in the centre".
Who is exemplifying more intelligence and brilliance? They both score 10/10, but that really isn't telling us the information which we want to know.
Now, let's take our monty players and move to the next block and find the next 3 shell monty hustler.
One of these two people will probably go 10/10 again, and the other one won't have a clue where to start and will be batting a 33.33% average.
One of these is good at 3 shell monty, the other is terrified that 960 will prove them to be a poser who requires an opening prep pacifier and an opening prep safety-blanket in order to survive the opening against a real chess player who actually prove an understanding of the game and who can actually prove chess-brilliance.
The only reason you're afraid of a 960 opening and consider it "random"...is because you don't understand chess as well as others.
"My memory is not that good...but I'm a much better chess player than you...and 960 proves that point and testifies to my capacity to effect chess brilliance without any shortcuts, study, the standing on of shoulders, experience, or needing to 'know by heart'." - The 960 Enthusiast
RNBKQBNR variant? Somewhat measures the ability to study opening prep.
960 variant? Exclusively measures raw talent.
There is no reason to mix and match these.
Opening prep is superfluous when it comes to the ability to create chess brilliance...such as Magnus' poisoned rook against Hikaru.
Opening prep is also superfluous to the general audience. Not only because it's so complex and involved (without requiring any more intelligence than 960) ... but also because it's all secretive and only the top 99.9% of the best chess players on the planet can even begin to understand what they're actually looking at when the top 10 in the world compete.
-
"This weird castling business in Fischer Random is just another peculiar issue as well as possible biased setups. Is enabling castling a concession to normalize the position quicker to play our beloved conventional chess?"
There is nothing "weird" about it. En passant is "weird". Castling in the classical variant is "weird".
It's just castling. It's not weird and there is nothing extraordinary about it.
On the point about biased setups? Yes! Finally.
You've finally diagnosed an actual challenge with 960.
Yes. It is true. 960 can sometimes be more/less advantageous to the white pieces than the RNBKQBNR variant.
But this could be worked around in a variety of ways by tournament organizers.
And, no, it's not "a concession to get back to classical". Castling is an awesome addition to chess, and it makes good sense that we'd include such a great ruleset in 960, too.
-
"I do not think Fischer Random Chess will have a bright future since the regular game is still rich enough."
We're exactly one Netflix special away. Literally.
So we could restate your point:
"I think that 960's future is guaranteed as soon as there's a 'Queen's Gambit Part II' Netflix special that focuses on it." - Sarg0n (paraphrased)
-
"There have been numerous attempts by fed up individuals to install various alterations, but the chess players will vote with their feet - as they have been doing already."
Firstly, 960 isn't one of many "alterations".
It's probably more chessier than the chess that we're used to.
As I stated in point #10, we can see how it has completely unique effects, all of which speak and drive directly towards the heart of chess.
For a long time, as a "chess purist" I shunned every variant including 960. I hold no cause for Bobby and I think that he was probably a little bit of a punk. But after some time and some critical thought...I can understand exactly how and why his understanding that "960 is more chess than the RNBQKBNR variant" is actually correct and accurate.
It's different. Yes. The RNBKQBNR variant deserves a permanent spot. Yes. But 960 is the ruleset that most speaks to the spirit of chess.
Secondly, no. We haven't really seen an effective attempt.
A 'Queen's Gambit Part II' would be an attempt to inform the chess world of this wonderful resource.
But most of the chess world is the same way I was for decades.
There are many good reasons why we overlook 960...but none of that has to do with what 960 offers.
-
"...but the chess players will vote with their feet - as they have been doing already."
The chess world is voting with it's ignorance, with it's resistance to change, with it's comfort zone, with what's been called "classical and normal", with it's biases, with what it considers 'mainstream', with what it considers 'the pack' follows and 'the pack's' values, with it's vested interest, with it's fear, etc.
As I said, those who've seen 960 for what it is, seem to all love it for everything it can offer that the classical variant can't...and that list is not small or insignificant.
And, in my case, I looked at 960 for decades, and I scoffed at it as being some "garbage variant" that "wasn't classical" or "real chess" or "pure chess" or "what I was used to" or "what I was comfortable with" or "what would reward the 1000s of games I've played, and would let me use all of that experience to beat up on newcomers who didn't know the openings yet...regardless of if I was ACTUALLY a better chess player...or not" or etc.
So, your story isn't new to me.
I could have written this article with your perspective a few years ago, Sarg0n.
But it'd have been a perspective that was borne out of all kinds of biases. It'd have been a simple perspective. It'd have been a biased perspective. It'd have been a perspective void of objectivity and understanding.
Now, after realizing what 960 offers, I can see exactly why it could and should be made the new norm ruleset moving forward, and the many different advantages that it offers the chess world in comparison to the current ruleset.
960 is such a joy to play!
By the way...I'm curious if we know of a single case where someone discovered and praised the untapped benefits of 960, and then later recanted and went back to thinking that the classical variant was better? It seems that if we're constantly seeing people convert to 960, and not the other way around, that it might mean something.
-
And just for the record...Sarg0n...what is it that you say to someone who might not yet know decades worth of opening study, and who you might go 5-5 with the classical ruleset...but who whoops you 9 out of 10 times in the 960 ruleset?
How is it possible for you to convince yourself, or anyone else, that you're actually the better chess player?
Without your opening prep pacifier and safety-blanket...your (lack of) understanding and brilliance is made completely plain and objectively obvious.
In fact, simply your objection to 960, on it's face, is probably remarkable.
When I look at the people who seem to love chess the most, they also seem to see the value in 960 and hold it in very high regard.
It's interesting that you feel a strong aversion towards it.
It's interesting that your objections seem to lack substance.
It's interesting that I could so easily voice so much cogent and salient substance regarding 960's validity as the official ruleset.
-
@Prophiscient There is nothing stopping the chess world from making the 960 ruleset the norm.
