Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Site Ideas Forum

Site Ideas Forum

  1. 01 May '06 03:47
    I know it may be difficult to implement, but could the site have a choice between regular chess and chess960 (Fisher random chess)?

    (Sorry if this was suggested previously)
  2. 01 May '06 04:21
    I'm a kind of a traditionalist that think that there are only one chess game and this is Chess.

    If we let in bastards as chess960, then why not allowing all other kind of chess variants too? And find ourselves in an anarchy of chaotic chess.

    I vote No.
  3. Subscriber cashthetrash
    PoPeYe
    01 May '06 06:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I'm a kind of a traditionalist that think that there are only one chess game and this is Chess.

    If we let in bastards as chess960, then why not allowing all other kind of chess variants too? And find ourselves in an anarchy of chaotic chess.

    I vote No.
    I second the motion. If there are no more in favor the voting is closed. The motion has failed. Democracy in action. Majority rules. Standard chess only. Next issue.
  4. 01 May '06 07:21 / 4 edits
    I wouldn't call chess960 or any other variation a bastard, because in that case "traditional" chess would be a bastard too. If we want to be ortodox or traditionalist, we would still be playing Chaturanga or Shatranj. Millions of players in the East play Xiangqi and Shogi, games that share a common origin with our "traditional" chess.

    Chess has changed over the centuries. And plenty of great players have tried variations of chess as a way to get better at it. Capablanca used to play with Lasker and others his own version of chess. Others have practiced "shuffle" chess as a way to get better in certain aspects of the game (chess960 is just a variation of it).

    I have no intention to stop playing "traditional" chess, just suggest a way to get better at it. Chess960 may be a very good way to get better in tactics and positional chess.

    Players sometimes get frustrated because their oponent can easily defeat them because he did his homework on openings by consulting a database or by memorizing them. According to my understanding, chess960 makes openings memorization irrelevant.

    Anyways, maybe instead of implementing chess960 (with all its associated rules of castling) it would be easier to allow the players to setup the board so that they can set the configuration of the pieces themseves, just like shuffle chess.
  5. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    01 May '06 10:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Estebandido
    Anyways, maybe instead of implementing chess960 (with all its associated rules of castling) it would be easier to allow the players to setup the board so that they can set the configuration of the pieces themseves, just like shuffle chess.
    New Game, Advanced Options, Play from Set-piece.

    D
  6. 01 May '06 10:34
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    New Game, Advanced Options, Play from Set-piece.

    D
    I didn't know about that. Thanks!
  7. 01 May '06 11:48
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    New Game, Advanced Options, Play from Set-piece.

    D
    I didn't know that either! Thank you very much!

    You just answered a question of mine in another thread.
  8. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    01 May '06 12:02
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I didn't know that either! Thank you very much!

    You just answered a question of mine in another thread.
    An even better tip is to get Firefox, Greasemonkey and ouroboros' script "Set Piece" from http://members.shaw.ca/ouroboros/RHP/

    That way you can set up boards without having to use the awful site "set piece" page.

    D
  9. 01 May '06 13:18
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    An even better tip is to get Firefox...
    I don't beleive in having two different browsers at the same time.
    Firefox? No thanks.
  10. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    01 May '06 14:29
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I don't beleive in having two different browsers at the same time.
    Firefox? No thanks.
    Why would you need two browsers?

    D
  11. Standard member XanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    01 May '06 14:38
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I don't beleive in having two different browsers at the same time.
    Firefox? No thanks.
    If you use one of the few remaining sites out there that refuses to comply by basic design conventions and thereby only works with IE (and even then only when it feels like it) you can get an extension for Firefox that allows certains tabs to be rendered using the IE engine.
  12. 01 May '06 15:14
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Why would you need two browsers?
    You mean that I should throw MS Internet Explorer away?
  13. Standard member XanthosNZ
    Cancerous Bus Crash
    01 May '06 15:59
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You mean that I should throw MS Internet Explorer away?
    Completely. It's exploit riddled and non-standards compliant.
  14. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    01 May '06 16:34
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You mean that I should throw MS Internet Explorer away?
    M$ have made it very difficult to do that, but why would you want it?

    D
  15. 01 May '06 16:37
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    M$ have made it very difficult to do that, but why would you want it?

    D
    Yes, why would I want that?
    I'm satisfied with what I have.
    IE is good enough.