05 Jun 05
Game 1189475
We agreed on previous thread to do this. Should be interesting and change the game completely, comments/opinions/advice?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by mathmoCool, but what will the starting position be?
Game 1189475
We agreed on previous thread to do this. Should be interesting and change the game completely, comments/opinions/advice?
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2I am not sure if I agree, but I am leaning toward agreeing. The purpose of a rating is to give an idea of how strong your opponent is. Using two different systems to influence the same rating kind if ruins this.
Nothing against fisherandom chess in itself, but I think this should not be allowed to be rated in the same system as the standard games.
05 Jun 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhile the current rating system gives you an idea of how strong your opponent is, it does not tell you what his/her strengths actually are. I don't see much difference between a random start and rated set piece play, as the effect they have on the game would depend on ones strengths, and not necessary ones rating.
I am not sure if I agree, but I am leaning toward agreeing. The purpose of a rating is to give an idea of how strong your opponent is. Using two different systems to influence the same rating kind if ruins this.
05 Jun 05
1 edit
I think it would be best if it was unrated. Not that it's going to make a big difference, though. Your rating measures your ability to pick the best move in every position in your game. This includes the opening, and types of positions that are likely to occur following the standard setup. In fischer random, there are a whole slew of different types of positions. If you played enough rated fischer random, your rating would begin to reflect your ability to play from those positions, and from random opening patterns.
11 Jun 05
Originally posted by mathmoYou can't legally castle after setting up the position like you did.
Game 1189475
We agreed on previous thread to do this. Should be interesting and change the game completely, comments/opinions/advice?
11 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by mathmoWell, from what I can tell the starting position is NRBBQKRN. Unfortunately you had to move the e Pawn one square to get this position.
Whats your thoughts on the position?, thought it would be interesting to analyse, best openings with this set up? Obvious the flank pawns are unprotected but what do you all reckon
From White's perspective, assuming the e Pawn was still on e2, I might open with e4 and d4, Nb3 and Ng3, 0-0. and I'd develop my Bishops along the now open diagonals. f3 seems like a good post for one of them. I'm not sure what I'd do with the other; it would depend on what my opponent was doing. Pretty classical stuff. It would of course depend on what my opponent did in response but that would be the basic idea; move center Pawns to open Bishops, develop Knights to b3/g3, and then play naturally from there. It's a good starting set up for standard classical play.
13 Jun 05
Originally posted by mathmoYou don't need to go through that opening dance to set up your starting position. Just play the game as a set-piece game, and allow or disallow castling as appropriate.
Game 1189475
We agreed on previous thread to do this. Should be interesting and change the game completely, comments/opinions/advice?