Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 11 Feb '08 08:37
    I plan to organize a FischerRandom tournament, for cheer fun, in the club I belong. The tournament will be completed in one evening alone, and the day will be an activity 'in between'.

    This is the plan. But what will happen, I'm not sure of.

    As I see it, two things should be taken into consideration:

    (1) How to begin each game.
    The participants are new to FischerRandom and to explain how the setup will be done is quite complicated, compared to ordinary chess. The right way is to use a dice to choose the position of each piece. (Is it?) But I plan to print up the position boards on a piece of paper (like we have at the forum from a FEN-code). By making a few dozens of them and hand them out in random order, I think I've solved that problem. Now every game can be started quite quickly.

    (2) The rule of castling.
    Before the tournament begins I plan to have a lecture about the FisherRandom, the story behind it, the point of it, the difference between FischerRandom and ordinary chess. The main difference in the rules is the castling rule. Then I hand over the particular rule at the back of the random position paper.

    Now I need your help. Is there anything else I should think of? Have I forgotten some important detail?
  2. 12 Feb '08 00:43 / 1 edit
    Well, many tournaments use the same starting position for each level of the tournament. Donno the tourney's structure.

    Essential is that no one knows beforehand which of the 960 positions are going to be played. If one opponent knows and the other doesn't then that one player can develop opening theory for that specific position, knowing that that will be the one that's going to be played.

    So just use dice, or a computer, to generate the starting positions for each round.
    Doesn't matter how you pick them. As long as you (semi)-randomly pick some of the 960 different positions. You can just as well just pick some random numbers from 1 to 960. Let's just say, 32, 154, 434, 651 and 787. Just picked some random numbers. No dice needed. Then, look up the positions that fit these position numbers and play.
    Just make sure they are existing legal chess960 positions.


    Castling rule just has to be explained and hopefully everyone understands. If they are all new to chess960 then have someone make sure each castling move is legal right when it's played.
  3. 12 Feb '08 01:20
    Let us know if you can castle with the site's current functionality. I don't think you can.
  4. 12 Feb '08 03:11
    Originally posted by luctruc
    Let us know if you can castle with the site's current functionality. I don't think you can.
    I think this is supposed to be OTB.
  5. 12 Feb '08 03:33
    Originally posted by tomtom232
    I think this is supposed to be OTB.
    Oh.

    Never mind.
  6. 12 Feb '08 03:42
    http://www.chess-960.org/english/14524.html

    Here you go. A position generator.
  7. 12 Feb '08 08:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Prometheus4096
    Well, many tournaments use the same starting position for each level of the tournament. Donno the tourney's structure.

    Essential is that no one knows beforehand which of the 960 positions are going to be played. If one opponent knows and the other doesn't then that one player can develop opening theory for that specific position, knowing that that o chess960 then have someone make sure each castling move is legal right when it's played.
    Thank you, Prometheus4096, for good advices.

    Perhaps I start every game in the same round from the same position. It makes it easier. The next round I'll change position.

    I think that I will use 2x10 minutes or perhaps 2x15 thinking time so I can complete the tournament in the same evening without being to late home, some are young.

    I plan to start the activity by a lecture of FischerRandom, as a tribute to Bobby himself, about him, the prehistory of FisherRandom and the actual creation of it, the meaning and benefits of it, and lastly, the rules.

    As I see it, the castling rules will be most cumbersome. Yet so simple, but, when you are in the pressure to cope with the opening-line-less chess, to decide when to castle, and most important, how to castle. I think it is easy to forget the rules of it.

    I use the name FisherRandom, because it has its connection to Bobby. Noone knows how Chess960 is pronounced. Is it "Chess nine hundered and sixty" or plain "Chess nine sixty" or "Chess nine six oh"?

    Oh, and thank you, Coconut, for the link. With my chess figurine font I can just copy and paste it into word with an appropriate size and, voilà. Problem solved.
  8. 12 Feb '08 12:02
    I’m not suggesting you change anything, but out of curiousity, are you aware of Dvoretsky’s suggestion?

    http://www.chesscafe.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky.htm

    See section “6. An Alternative Suggestion” in particular. I like his suggestion and agree with his comments on FischerRandom. In short, he thinks that FR is too radical a change and instead suggests making much fewer changes to the start position, but still enough to avoid opening preparation.
  9. 12 Feb '08 12:47 / 2 edits
    Fischer Random is very radical. And it's supposed to be that way. Right now it's not going to replace standard chess anytime soon.

    Sure, at one point computers will have ruined standard chess and we have to create a new 'standard chess' somewhere inbetween FR and SC.

    Some FR positions are very similar to the normal starting position, of course the normal starting position is also part of the 960.

    But some are very radical, for sure. They require total counter-intuitive opening play to develop the pieces properly. Some undefended pawns that will be attacked with one move by white. Some are very very sharp and allow for a very quick attack. This also gives white a larger advantage than in normal chess.

    This is a game I played recently:


    {Chess 960-Position 496}
    1. g3 g6 2. a4 f5 3. Ncd3
    Ncd6 4. a5 c6 5. a6 Nc7 6. axb7 Qxb7 7. f4 Nc4 8. O-O-O?? Nxb2 9. Nc5 Qb5 10. c3 Qxe2 11. Nf3 d6 12. Na4 Nd3+ 13. Kc2 Bb3+ ( 13... Bb3+ 14. Kb1 Bxa4+ 15.
    Bb6 Rxb6+ 16. Qb2 Rxb2+ 17. Ka1 Qe6 18. c4 Qxc4 19. Ne5 Qa2# ) 0-1

    Seems it's bad for white to keep pushing that a-pawn. But that's not really a big mistake. Castling here just loses.

    This opponent was quite high rated. Chess960 is very very harsh.

    And going back to the tourney. If all people play the same position in the same round then you actually have something to discuss and compare. How did everyone (try to) handle the position they had to play? What were the different ideas. Which one worked out well? What was very dangerous, etc.


    I think that for FR to replace SC in the future, maybe some of the more radical FR positions need to be removed. Maybe remove all positions with unprotected pawns and/or positions with neighboring bishops.
  10. 12 Feb '08 13:33
    Originally posted by Prometheus4096
    And going back to the tourney. If all people play the same position in the same round then you actually have something to discuss and compare. How did everyone (try to) handle the position they had to play? What were the different ideas. Which one worked out well? What was very dangerous, etc.
    Good point.

    Perhaps, if the club leaders permit it (if they don't have any other plans), I will try FisherRandom tonight.
  11. 12 Feb '08 13:42
    Originally posted by Prometheus4096
    I think that for FR to replace SC in the future, maybe some of the more radical FR positions need to be removed. Maybe remove all positions with unprotected pawns and/or positions with neighboring bishops.
    But what I like about Dvoretsky's suggestion is that it is capable of cancelling out opening preparation while also maintaining the general character of normal chess. For example, castling stays the same, and all the pieces start on the same squares.

    I'm not sure what FR is achieving that Dvoretsky's idea isn't. But I admit that I have no experience of playing either!
  12. 12 Feb '08 14:16
    Yes, but the fun of FR is that the whole dynamics of the game are different. Not just the opening theory.
  13. 12 Feb '08 14:25
    Originally posted by Prometheus4096
    Yes, but the fun of FR is that the whole dynamics of the game are different. Not just the opening theory.
    Remember that fun is a subjective thing. Given that there has been a poor uptake of FR, maybe most players would prefer that the whole dynamics were not changed. I don't have a problem with the dynamics of normal chess; it's what made it the most popular game in the world. But opening theory is becoming more of an issue, so maybe we just have to solve that part and nothing else.