An argument for making chess960 the standard for chess

@Adrenalectomy said in #40:
> I don't dislike 960 and occasionally play a bit but normal chess just seems more aesthetically neat.

Okay, that's fair enough. Probably based on familiarity.

Chess is already rich enough. And learning openings (for anyone below 2500 elo, which is a different story) is not the same as rote memorization. No wonder you hate openings, if that's how you learn them.

You could also make the case: why is 10x10 chess not more popular? Or better yet, why is 10x10 chess960 not more popular? Why is any other variant not more popular than chess, for that matter? I personally think it's a combination of the age and popularity of the game (1500+ years) and a very good combination of richness but not overcomplexity. A beginner can easily play a fairly good game simply by learning an opening or two along with the ideas associated with them. This is not the case in Chess960, where one has to have fairly advanced knowledge of structures in order to do so. Players can focus on adapting their understanding without the added complexity of having to worry about the starting position of the game.

Now, Chess960 at a higher level (2600+), where engine preparation is actually significant, is a different story. I fully agree that Chess960 can be quite interesting to watch and can certainly be an interesting addition to the current schedule of professional chess players.

@Prophiscient said in #34:
> If we started with 960, would you be arguing that we should stop playing the other 959 to obsess over SP 518?
Yes some people would. I can imagine these points being made:
1. Remove the dices. Chess would be a completely determined game without any randomness.
2. Let's chose a start position with a high symmetry and all the pawns protected.
3. Most important: Punish the dull rote learners who have had the computer show them the best first moves for each of the 960 positions, giving them an advantage over the others. for one position, anyone can memorize the best starting move. Let's reduce the opening theory to a small fraction of 1/960.

@StateYourPoint said in #42:
> Chess is already rich enough.

Why settle for "rich enough" when we can have 960 times as much richness?

> And learning openings (for anyone below 2500 elo, which is a different story) is not the same as rote memorization.

That's just not true. Even at my level, much of the opening is rote memorization. You know what to play and you play it simply because you remember the correct moves. It's that simple, even at the amateur level. It is true that the better you are, the more of a problem it becomes, but it's simply false that this is only an issue for GMs. Anyone who is somewhat decent at chess knows some theory.

> No wonder you hate openings, if that's how you learn them.

That's what opening theory is. It's just move memorization.

> You could also make the case: why is 10x10 chess not more popular? Or better yet, why is 10x10 chess960 not more popular? Why is any other variant not more popular than chess, for that matter?

The idea is that we want a game as much like chess that solves the problems of classical chess. 10x10 would be a drastic change. Same with most other variants. Chess960 is ideal because of how little it changes chess while being a very big fix.

> I personally think it's a combination of the age and popularity of the game (1500+ years) and a very good combination of richness but not overcomplexity. A beginner can easily play a fairly good game simply by learning an opening or two along with the ideas associated with them.

I don't agree here. No beginner is playing a "fairly good game" of chess by memorizing the moves of an opening. That's just nonsense. To play a fairly good game of chess requires some pretty good understanding. Theory is more of an issue at higher levels.

> This is not the case in Chess960, where one has to have fairly advanced knowledge of structures in order to do so.

Beginners will not do well in classical chess or chess960.

> Now, Chess960 at a higher level (2600+), where engine preparation is actually significant, is a different story. I fully agree that Chess960 can be quite interesting to watch and can certainly be an interesting addition to the current schedule of professional chess players.

This is nonsense. It is true that the benefit of chess960 will scale with the ability of the players, but let's not pretend you need to be a GM to benefit from chess960. Chess960 will benefit players of any level who have to deal with opening theory. And I know from experience that that includes players like me who are nowhere near GM (or even master) level.

@sheckley666 said in #43:
> Yes some people would.
You can say this, but I highly doubt it.

> I can imagine these points being made:
> 1. Remove the dices. Chess would be a completely determined game without any randomness.

Sure, and why should we care if the starting position is randomized? The game is already completely determined by the players once the starting position is chosen. Even choosing SP 518 is an arbitrary decision. It's not determined that we have to play this starting position. It was arbitrarily chosen.

> 2. Let's chose a start position with a high symmetry and all the pawns protected.

All chess960 positions are completely symmetrical between white and black. Why should we care about other symmetry? Just for aesthetic reasons? I care about gameplay mechanics more. And why care that all pawns are protected from the outset? They can be easily protected in game. And I think it's better to have some pawns unprotected in some positions. Leads to more interesting tactics and games.

> 3. Most important: Punish the dull rote learners who have had the computer show them the best first moves for each of the 960 positions, giving them an advantage over the others. for one position, anyone can memorize the best starting move. Let's reduce the opening theory to a small fraction of 1/960.

This doesn't make any sense. Knowing the best move to each starting position will likely provide little to no advantage to players since there are likely multiple "best" first moves. For example, in SP 518, e4, d4, Nf3, etc. are all perfectly acceptable first moves. Memorizing one of these will be unlikely to provide any advantage as there are multiple first moves that can be played.

Theory in chess isn't about memorizing the first best move or the first two best moves. It's about the depth of your analysis which becomes meaningful after multiple moves. Theory is a problem because of how deep it is. Such shallow theory in 960 is unlikely to be useful and would be a laughable waste of time.

960 is not one bit richer. Chess starting position is very well balances unlike some 960 positions.. 960 pretty unsuited for blitz as some of opening positions are very critcal. Given how low popularity is has it seem that I am not alone. Fishcer chess has failed and unlikely to ever be challenger for chess.

@petri999 said in #46:
> 960 is not one bit richer. Chess starting position is very well balances unlike some 960 positions.. 960 pretty unsuited for blitz as some of opening positions are very critcal. Given how low popularity is has it seem that I am not alone. Fishcer chess has failed and unlikely to ever be challenger for chess.

This is complete nonsense on every point.

1. Chess960 is 960 times as rich as chess.

2. Which 960 positions are unbalanced? They all seem balanced to me (and are indicated to be so through engine analysis).

3. Chess960 has obviously not failed. It's less than 30 years old and is already the most popular variant of chess. It's played in high level tournaments often (one is even coming up which features Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, Ding Liren, Alireza Firouzja, Levon Aronian, and others). Levon even said he wants 960 to replace classical chess. And it is constantly praised by other notable players, such as Magnus Carlsen. It has even been added to the FIDE laws of chess. Once it gets official ratings, I predict its popularity will increase even more.

So yeah, your points are just nonsense.

Those chess960 freaks are the vegans of chess:

- missionary attitude
- they tell everyone

@Sarg0n said in #48:
> Those chess960 freaks are the vegans of chess:
>
> - missionary attitude
> - they tell everyone

People who have good points tend to do that. Acting like veganism is a bad thing is embarrassing.

Actually, good points.

Veganism > animal murder.

Chess960 > classical chess.

@Prophiscient said in #45:
> Sure, and why should we care if the starting position is randomized?

A matter of taste. Some would feel, that the randomness disturbs the pureness of chess.

> Why should we care about other symmetry? Just for aesthetic reasons?

Another matter of taste.

> This doesn't make any sense. Knowing the best move to each starting position will likely provide little to no advantage to players since there are likely multiple "best" first moves. For example, in SP 518, e4, d4, Nf3, etc. are all perfectly acceptable first moves. Memorizing one of these will be unlikely to provide any advantage as there are multiple first moves that can be played.

It does make sense. If you saw the SP 518 for the first time (or couldn't remember the best moves), then it would cost some thought and time to find out.

> Theory in chess isn't about memorizing the first best move or the first two best moves. It's about the depth of your analysis which becomes meaningful after multiple moves. Theory is a problem because of how deep it is. Such shallow theory in 960 is unlikely to be useful and would be a laughable waste of time.

Funny. Most of the openings have got their names long before computers were thinkable. And now you are claiming, that these opening lines are helpful only because of the depth they nowadays have achieved with the help of computers.

You need not memorize the same depth for each of the 960 positions as you have today for SP 518.
You only need more depth than your opponent.