maybe the random is overshooting in the progression of chess.
@dboing said in #71:
> maybe the random is overshooting in the progression of chess.
I think the randomness has some benefits, though:
1. Eliminates bias in the initial starting position. You might get a position you preferred, but it was completely random.
2. Likely to increase the diversity of starting positions. Players will tend towards known and studied starting positions. By making it completely random, you don't have that luxury. This will increase the amount of variety and possibilities in 960.
3. Prevents pre-arranged starting positions. Players might come to an agreement between each other (either implicitly or explicitly) that they play one position they have studied. This basically brings back opening theory to some degree. Or one player may deceive the other, and then it would just be weird.
4. Prevents turning chess into a partially meta-game where there is a whole new component of choosing initial piece placements. This fundamentally changes the nature of chess.
For these reasons, I think the randomness is probably preferrable.
> maybe the random is overshooting in the progression of chess.
I think the randomness has some benefits, though:
1. Eliminates bias in the initial starting position. You might get a position you preferred, but it was completely random.
2. Likely to increase the diversity of starting positions. Players will tend towards known and studied starting positions. By making it completely random, you don't have that luxury. This will increase the amount of variety and possibilities in 960.
3. Prevents pre-arranged starting positions. Players might come to an agreement between each other (either implicitly or explicitly) that they play one position they have studied. This basically brings back opening theory to some degree. Or one player may deceive the other, and then it would just be weird.
4. Prevents turning chess into a partially meta-game where there is a whole new component of choosing initial piece placements. This fundamentally changes the nature of chess.
For these reasons, I think the randomness is probably preferrable.
@Sarg0n said in #1:
> My letter to the editor has been published in the latest New In Chess. I wasn't too happy that the last magazine in 2022 was full of chess960^^
I congratulate NiC for publishing your letter, even though this magazine spends considerable effort publishing about Chess960. I also congratulate you for making your feelings towards Chess960 very clear in that letter. Of course, you have the right not to want to play Chess960 as many Chess960 lovers have the right to play it, and organize face-to-face/online tournaments all over the world (FIDE Fischer Random World Chess Championship, Champions Showdown: Chess 9LX, Reykjavik Open are three examples). Traditional chess doesn't have to be faced with Chess960. A few years ago Garry Kasparov, in a conference for TED, said machines and chess players don't have to be enemies; that it's rather necessary for them to work together to make chess greater. The former world champion had several times said machines would never be a relevant factor in the development of chess. Advances in AI managed to change his mind. Chess960 is an extension of wonderful traditional chess ((in the same way machines are of human beings) and I believe playing/studying both will enrich them equally.
> My letter to the editor has been published in the latest New In Chess. I wasn't too happy that the last magazine in 2022 was full of chess960^^
I congratulate NiC for publishing your letter, even though this magazine spends considerable effort publishing about Chess960. I also congratulate you for making your feelings towards Chess960 very clear in that letter. Of course, you have the right not to want to play Chess960 as many Chess960 lovers have the right to play it, and organize face-to-face/online tournaments all over the world (FIDE Fischer Random World Chess Championship, Champions Showdown: Chess 9LX, Reykjavik Open are three examples). Traditional chess doesn't have to be faced with Chess960. A few years ago Garry Kasparov, in a conference for TED, said machines and chess players don't have to be enemies; that it's rather necessary for them to work together to make chess greater. The former world champion had several times said machines would never be a relevant factor in the development of chess. Advances in AI managed to change his mind. Chess960 is an extension of wonderful traditional chess ((in the same way machines are of human beings) and I believe playing/studying both will enrich them equally.
We have said it before. Ever since Fischer launched fischerandom, the enemies of creativity and beauty at the chessboard decided to attack it. The enemies of chess 960 continue with their moth-eaten and outdated opening books. Those of us who love chess are not closed to an innovation that is changing the way we play and think about chess. An innovation is not measured by how many people use it. Disqualifying fischerandom by the number of people who play it is as absurd as disqualifying African hopscotch by the number of his players. Fischerandom has a value in itself, which does not depend on how many of us play it.
The mountain of chess emitting terrible noises was said to be in labor. But, as people watched to see what would happen, all they saw come out of it was the mouse named chess960.
I am quite relaxed - after 15 years of waiting for the tsunami^^
I am quite relaxed - after 15 years of waiting for the tsunami^^
@Rocanegra said in #74:
>
but why not try it without random? what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
>
but why not try it without random? what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
Sargon compares the 960 chess to a mouse, but at the same time writes reader letters attacking it. He himself started this controversy by attacking the 960, but at the same time he says it is a mouse ! This is already funny.
@dboing said in #76:
> but why not try it without random? what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
The crucial thing in Fischerandom is that it eliminates the theory of openings. Classical chess involves opening theory. Consequently, Fischerandom is more creative. All this has been debated ad nauseam. Anyone who likes classical chess can play it, there is no need to attack anyone who likes Fischerandom.
> but why not try it without random? what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
The crucial thing in Fischerandom is that it eliminates the theory of openings. Classical chess involves opening theory. Consequently, Fischerandom is more creative. All this has been debated ad nauseam. Anyone who likes classical chess can play it, there is no need to attack anyone who likes Fischerandom.
@Sarg0n
To be objective, I agree with trying out new openings. I myself study some least popular openings such as the Basman Defense (1.e4 g5) or the London System (the latter has gained many followers after the coronation of Ding Liren as the new world champion). The TWIC archive and AI help me a lot in this study. That being said, I consider Chess960 can be a good complement to studying traditional chess, since, among the many interesting things GM @RealDavidNavara has mentioned, positional and opening principles also apply in Chess960.
To be objective, I agree with trying out new openings. I myself study some least popular openings such as the Basman Defense (1.e4 g5) or the London System (the latter has gained many followers after the coronation of Ding Liren as the new world champion). The TWIC archive and AI help me a lot in this study. That being said, I consider Chess960 can be a good complement to studying traditional chess, since, among the many interesting things GM @RealDavidNavara has mentioned, positional and opening principles also apply in Chess960.
@Sarg0n said in #75:
>
> I am quite relaxed - after 15 years of waiting for the tsunami^^
Momentum does seem to be minimal. But its also clearer than ever that 960 is not going away, with many super GMs increasingly vocal about the combined effect of computers and memorization of lines generated by computers.
I dont know how anyone could possibly say that chess is perfect at the super gm level. Hikaru and Mamadyarov recently "played" a 28 move game in which Hikaru "played" a "novelty" that the engines came up, which would have been brutally hard to deal with, except Mamedyarov had run the same analysis and had the line memorized. So it was a draw. Is that even a "chess" "game"? Two me, its more like a child's game of memory. Or like the trick where a patzer "plays" two super GMs by copying the moves of one GM using white to be white in the other game. Granted, its not like this for the rest of us, but the Fischer Random championship seemed to be very much enjoyed by the super GMs.
>
> I am quite relaxed - after 15 years of waiting for the tsunami^^
Momentum does seem to be minimal. But its also clearer than ever that 960 is not going away, with many super GMs increasingly vocal about the combined effect of computers and memorization of lines generated by computers.
I dont know how anyone could possibly say that chess is perfect at the super gm level. Hikaru and Mamadyarov recently "played" a 28 move game in which Hikaru "played" a "novelty" that the engines came up, which would have been brutally hard to deal with, except Mamedyarov had run the same analysis and had the line memorized. So it was a draw. Is that even a "chess" "game"? Two me, its more like a child's game of memory. Or like the trick where a patzer "plays" two super GMs by copying the moves of one GM using white to be white in the other game. Granted, its not like this for the rest of us, but the Fischer Random championship seemed to be very much enjoyed by the super GMs.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.