I very much enjoy playing Chess960 – Fischer Random. It no longer excites me to see openings analyzed until move 45 by Fritz 🙂 I am thinking about organizing a Chess960 – Fischer Random tournament. What is your take?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
It would be fun but I have never played chess 960.
Seems like a good idea. FRC, one of Fischer’s good creations, next to the incremental time chess clock. Maybe Fischer himself want’s to play, since he don’t play traditional chess anymore.
Ooooo! I’d be interested in playing that. You could even start a new federation that would have it’s own rating system! Then maybe, when the USCF implodes, you’ll be set up to transfer the existing organization over to the new one!
Good idea Susan!
That would be great getting Bobby Fischer to play again even if it is random!
BTW: The board is set up completely wrong in the diagram.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The problem as I see it is that although Fischer Random uses the same pieces and board as classical Chess, it is not classical Chess. You can try running tournaments for Fischer Random (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random), Pente (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pente), Xiangqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi), or even Go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_game). I’m sure they are all great games, and I’m sure people will love to play in such tournaments. On the other hand, it is estimated that 605 million people worldwide know how to play chess, and some 7.5 million are members of their national chess federations. This makes chess one of the most popular sports worldwide, and clearly the most popular board game worldwide. I might be wrong, but I serious doubt that Fischer Random will ever have that type of following.
to anonymous “BTW the board is setup completely wrong in the diagram”. Thats the idea in Fischer Random chess the back rank gets shuffled by computer to create different starting positions for each game. Both sides have identical starting positions after the computer shuffle. In regular chess there are 20 possible opening moves in Fischer Random there are 960 to eliminate opening thoery of the old chess.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think it’ll lead to 960 times as much opening theory.
My take on it:
Especially with the emergence of computers, there are many excellent intellectual games. Yet, chess is classic, in all the meanings of the word “classic”. Chess960 is another, perhaps excellent game, but it isn’t the chess the world knows for a couple of thousand years.
As for the disadvantage of the “analyzing opening for the first 45 moves with Fritz”, is not a problem for the millions of people out there who play chess, it is very specific to the very high level players only. 99+% of the people who play chess, will not get any advantage out of playing Fischer960. In fact, they are happy if they vaguely remember a few opening lines, and use it.
Among the high level players it may become popular, but only after they know so much about the traditional chess, that they are bored with the zillions of openings they learned and know, and for them it will be an interesting challenge to play the Fischer960. Not for the “regular people” playing chess.
Gabor
As part of the annual “Chess Classics” in Mainz, Germany there is a big Chess960 Open and the winner qualifies for the world championship the following year. Svidler did win twice and lost last year against Aronian. I think Aronian will play Bacrot next August.
The game itself is hard, very hard. You have to focus from move 1, no known pattern, no standard maneuvres. It’s often claimed as beneficial for “people, who lack of time for preparation”. I believe it’s even harder for an Amateur to get an upset, because there are no pattern anymore, which help you to survive the opening against a Grandmaster.
It’s worth to play it, it’s fun, but it requires much more attention and is more exhaustive.
I still prefer the classical chess, but from time to time, why not.
it would be cool if both players can setup their pieces, like in stratego 🙂
Please do organize a tournament, Susan. It would be cool to see major name players play against each other in Fischer Random. See who is really the best instead of who has memorized openings the furthest.
I also remember hearing that Bobby Fischer would only play Fischer Random now and that he would play if the price was right.
This certainly is an interesting idea. At my level opening theory has little sway beyond move 5 if that far so classic chess will always be my first love.
GM Polgar, Regarding seeing FRITZ analyzing Chess960 games what is your opinion of the Chess960@HOME project? In their words this is their goal:
“In this project we try to combine Chess960 and the idea of distributed computing.
With the BOINC software framework from the University of Berkeley exists a platform we want to use in this project to perform these computing intensive tasks. With it we want to give this chess variant some basics in theory of this game.”
Does this sound plausible? I wonder how strong an engine like FRITZ, modified to run in a distributed computing environment, would be.
There is a form of regular chess that you could add your partner’s captured pieces to your board. It’s a team of two against another team of two. I saw kids play this for a lot of fun.
Susan,
have you heard about Seirawan chess? http://www.chessmastery.com/seirawan-chess.html
Although Fischer “invented” FRC, the basic idea wasn’t his. One of the early proposed variants involved swapping the positions of the bishop and knight. Something closer to FRC was “Pre-Chess”, which Pal Benko described many years ago in a Chess Life article. In this version, the first and eight ranks started out empty; the players spend the first 8 “moves” placing their pieces on their respective first ranks. Unlike FRC, there was no requirement for symmetry. However, there was a requirement for placing one bishop each on a light square and a dark square. Pre-chess only allowed castling if the King and rook were on their “natural” beginning squares (e.g., e1 and h1). As a result, the King was usually placed near the corner via one of the first 8 placement moves. In general, I think Pre-Chess is better, with the possible exception that FRC’s castling rules cause the middlegame positions to more closely resemble classical chess.
Congratulations GM Susan Polgar.
By announcing your official approval of Fischer Random Chess…you’ve fired the first shot that should be heard at FIDE. I salute you. Thank you, thank you THANK YOU!!
It’s about time someone of stature in the chess world should say something about Chess960. Now…to make sure such a Fischer Random Tournament actually succeeds…no shortcuts, GM Polgar!
Players CANNOT prearrange their favorite 960 starting positions. This is crucial. GM Kasparov was heading in this direction when he suggested (in an interview prior to his retirement) FIDE think about selecting 30 positions a year…or even 1 FRC position to use per year.
I think an even greater way to attract interest in FRC would be for you to play a world titled GM in a Fischer Random event…similar to the one you played against GM Karpov in Kansas a while ago.
The only big problem with FRC is the castling! How do you castle !!!
Also what if all the bishops are on the same color?
I don’t think this has been well thought out!
Yes! I would love to see this FRC rated tournaments take place! Even better would be a Battle of the Sexes in FRC with Susan Polgar vs Bobby Fischer and he told you he was interested, this would be the event of the new millenium! I hope you can start this. I have played FRC and it is very hard, you actually have to think long before you make your first move and are on your own devices! I have beatend Senior Masters, Masters in FRC even though I am only rated USCF 1958!
In fact Karpov challenged Fischer to a FRC match last year! I would love to see the match between these two World Champions finally take place!
Chess is Chess !!!
Chess960 isn’t chess.
is very intresting game but not chess. Is another game.
For most of the player (99.9 %) there isn’t any problem with chess.
If Fischer or whoever wants play Chess960, let him do it.
The problem with opening theory isn`t problem for chess. Only is a problem for the business of ten (or so) players in the world.
Xargon, the true one …
Heck Yeah !! This is what we need and FRC 960 will give the chess world a fresh new aproach. It’s about time someone of your caliber is giving a good push to this fabulous chess variation here in the States. Of course, Bobby’s idea of keeping chess alive will be well backed up by lots of people who already play it around the world. Why not have a USFRC 960 Chess Federation?
This idea isn’t new – in my chess club I invented FRC in 2002 (or 2003?) and all players had fun and I had fun watching and leading the tournament.
But it was big work because I shuffled many positions at home with a dice (!) by my own – I’m sure you’re gonna do that more efficient with help of a computer programme.
So do it! It’s fun!
Regarding the comment(s) by anonymous regarding the bishops and castling… in FRC, White and Black each have a bishop on a “light” square and a “dark” square. As for castling, it’s a little hard to explain in a blog post, but basically, after castling the King and Rook end up on the same squares as in classical castling (e.g., King on g1 and Rook on f1).
Here is a link that probably explains it better than I can: http://frcec.chess960.info/FRC-Castling.htm
Contrary to the above post, this has been extensively “thought out”.
Good idea, and the winner will get a signed Polgar DVD for example.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yes,it’s a good idea for the chess professionals but not for most players who are amateurs and just love to play the game.These amateurs usually get lost in the opening by move 10!
I would like to see a chess champion win just like in figure skating. You have to do a technical part, a short program and a long program.
A chess tournament should include different games. Example; a blindful, a rapide part, a Fisher Random and maybe a Seirawan…
At school to pass a class you have to solve different type of problems not just one…
I think it’d be great for I’M’s and GM’s. However, for class players and even “Experts,” I think they have a lot to learn in traditional chess.
But, watching GM’s play this chess variant would be fantastic! It really tests one’s true abilities.
On a side note: Why always mention Fritz when talking about computer chess? It’s no longer nearly the best…Rybka is.
But, this opens the question…how much can GM’s really learn from super computers?
Has human play DRASTICALLY INCREASED due to the study of computers since the days of Capablanca, Lasker, Tal, and so many other greats?
Nevertheless…computers have humans beaten at even Fischer random. But, this need not discourage folks!
Just play other humans and forget about computers!
It’s been a long time since I last commented to a post here. This time the subject highly deserves it!
Susan, I SALUTE your idea of organizing a FRC tournament. As I posted long ago, I believe that the knowledge of opening theory is significantly hindering the development of true talent in chess. No prearranged positions – that’s the key for a new world of fantastic opportunities for worlwide chess development.
Talent is the key.. no artificial “preparation”. In this way, players like the great Julio Granda might even become World Champions! Talen is the answer.
Welcome back Renzo – IncaKing. I’ve always enjoyed reading your comments.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
So far none of the comments indicate the author has actually played Chess 960. I have, and it’s a blast. I played it in a side section concurrent with last year’s Washington (state) Open. We played it at G/10 with a 15 second increment and required scorekeeping until you got below 3 minutes. Most people kept score longer as the increment makes this feasible. We were allowed 4 minutes thinking time before starting the clocks for move 1.
It should be noted that the Chronos clock has a random position generator.
Mulfish
Do it — Chess 960 is a lot of fun.
At the grandmaster level, traditional “chess1” has devolved from a sport -to- only half a sport, plus half a puzzle to be solved at home (nice in its own way, but not very “sporting”).
The myth is this devolution is the biggest reason why chess960 should be elevated to full membership in the chess brotherhood.
Gabor wrote:
{
“As for the disadvantage of the “analyzing opening for the first 45 moves with Fritz”, is not a problem for the millions of people out there who play chess, it is very specific to the very high level players only. 99+% of the people who play chess, will not get any advantage out of playing Fischer960.”
}
I think Gabor’s reasonable remark misses the main point:
The biggest reason to try chess960 tournaments is that chess1 has long been hiding a lot of chess from us, and that is a shame.
The chess1 setup has its own themes and maneuvers, most repetitively B-N5 (such as Bc1g5 or Bf8b4 etc, usually to pin a knight yet again). The other 959 openings offer their own themes and maneuvers. They are there waiting in the unbiased concept of pure chess, but chess1 will never let you see them.
It gets worse. Chess960 is so much the same as chess1 that the common concensus was that chess960 games became the same as chess1 games by the start of the middle game phase (several quotes from grandmaster echo that early concensus). But as I documented in my chess960 book (here), the officers (non-pawn pieces) are aligned in chess960 middle games in ways we rarely or never see in the narrow and restrictive chess1.
I could show you a set of chess960 vs. chess1 middle game diagrams, and you could tell me which set came from which form of chess: what does that tell you?!
Until someone can explain to the world why chess1 middle game officer alignments are the only interesting alignments, the argument against the other 959 setups is weak.
We all know that if chess960 had been chosen by the ancients in 1475 (instead of chess1), that today people would shout down a person who says “We should switch away from our long tradition of chess960, and forbid all setups except RNBQ-KBNR”.
We along with chess960 are both suffering from the “tyranny of tradition”. I am not anti- chess1, but I am pro- chess960. There is room for both.
There is certainly room for chess960 when one looks at the marketing of chess in general. Look at the huge and positive response chess960 gets from the chess public every time Susan or Mig post on the topic.
The grandmasters love chess960. They ONLY reason they do not play in any long time-control chess960 tournaments is because no sponsor has yet decided to hold such a tournament.
“If you fund it, they will come.”
GeneM
http://CastleLong.com/
P.S. If/when Susan is elected to the USCF ExecBoard, I hope there will be support for officially allowing chess960 game results to be fed into any member’s (one primary) rating, just like any chess1 game result.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excellent idea, Susan. If only because more of these tournaments are needed to be able to evaluate this new form of chess accurately.
I think one of it’s strengths is it’s similarity to conventional chess. Otherwise one would be faced with literally dozens of chess variants. On the other hand, it’s nice to become familiar with how a particular opening develops, it’s typical ‘landscapes’, which FRC precludes. I’d be especially interested if it improves my conventional chess skills. I have heard that Chinese chess is good for that.
So, go for it! Especially if Booby Fischer gets back into public playing, that’s something any form of chess would benefit from.
lsur
If you look at chess960 games, most of them are only cheap tactics.
Far less strategy in chess960 than in chess…
Fischer chess is the future for real chess……..
why don’t they organize it really seriously…
Maybey Leon or Melody amber can do it!
Those who like chess should like chess960. I think it would be fun to see games and results and player comments from an open chess960 event in which classical chessplayers from a wide range of ratings compete.
FischerRandom Chess is the REAL chess. 3 cheers to Susan for promoting this! Please do hold this with minimum rapid time controls, or maybe even the classical time controls. Blitz etc. kind of speeds would be just terrible, and not a real game at all.
Rgds M.
YES
The Rules on Castling ????
That is the problem.
Hard to play the game well unless you know all the rules.
I realized that in chess 960 the game begins BEFORE the first movement. The players have to study with calmness the possibilities of that set up. Ok, in normal chess the game can be studied before the first movement too, the white can choose the opening or the inicial movement(s) before the game, but it`s diferent. In chess 960, part important of game happens before, in the understanding of the board ( which will be changed in the next game )
i scanned the many comments and all seemed very positive.
however, have you ever tried to get a game of fischer random on icc?
i have. i grow old waiting for someone to answer my challenge.
despite everyone saying it’s wonderful, most people are not willing to throw out all their study and work. they’re also not willing to throw out their traps they’ve set up in pet openings.
To answer the 4/2 8:02pm anonymous poster, “Pre-Chess” is from articles by Pal Benko and Art Bisguier in the November 1978 issue of Chess Life & Review, analyzing their 4-game match at 20/1+30/1 time controls. They attribute the idea to David Bronstein. It begins with just the Pawn rows on the board, and White then Black alternating major pieces on the back row. In the initial stage going first is a disadvantage, so this both equalizes White’s first-move edge and gives Black incentive to create imbalance with lively play. FRC and Pre-Chess are compared in Burt Hochberg’s review of S. Gligoric’s book on FRC here (PDF file).
I favor a melding of these games described on Hans Bodlaender‘s amazing Chess Variants site, under Baseline chess with Fischer rules. I updated it in January with a comment requiring at least one rook in a corner, fearing that both players posting both Bishops in corners would lead to early trades. (Indeed in the Benko-Bisguier match, Black opted for B in corner 7 of 8 times.) Dr. Bodlaender is a computer scientist in my field of computational complexity theory. We share in a subfield called “parameterized complexity”, though we have not co-authored a paper, and we share Christian belief.
To answer Gabor and towa and GeneM and other commenters comparing the effects of alternative rules: () Unlike with FRC the players can choose to play classic chess. () One can employ favorite setups and thus keep some familiarity, so as to “survive” the opening. () There is even more diversity in middlegame positions—and non-symmetry may create more exciting races on the wings. () I hear that some FRC setups make opening play difficult especially for Black.
It goes without saying that I would support a tournament with these rules :-); I wish I had more opportunity to try it against strong players. Although I’m listed there as its “inventor”, I disclaim all rights in favor of B+B+B and F+F (second F for Ed Friedlander—“shuffle chess” + Net Medic + +), and I expect that only practical testing will produce the best final version.
I should add, though, that it is proper for the first efforts to go to FRC itself, and I support Susan’s idea of a tournament in it. My purpose is that the FRC tournament should be regarded as a process of discovery, and my prediction (as a scientist) is that the resulting findings and desires for adjustment would tend in the direction I gave.
The following variants are interesting alternatives to Chess960:
Meteoric Chess
New Chess
Orphic Chess
Swedish Chess
The above drop variants all use regular pieces, and all avoid opening monothony. They are perfect for chess training. The last two were featured in Variant Chess magazine Oct 2006. /Mats