@Rocanegra said in #78:
>
Yes I know that, it eliminates the opening "theory" of long sequences and primarily move based knowledge. With some sparse chess theory to group some of them by position informatino such as pawnstrutures and possible plans all mostly orgarnizsed via move "geneaology".
My question was about the reason for pre-game random being the only thing ever tried to accomplished that with a set like 960 different backranks.
What does that ex-machina (prior to game) back rank randomisation have in that regard that random pairing of some balanced set of games (2 or 4 games) as competition match for rating or tounrnament purpose. Which in my naive thinking could accomplish the same thing, and still enalble position based planning beyond tactical, to be learned from enough repetition within a human learning critical time span (basic stuff). Why not rely of random pairing to ensure that the standard tournament dominating strategy (at least until some level) does not apply to a 960 with that less overkill randomization (it might work but at what price, and could a more suble randomization mechanism that can still allow individual choice but not assurance that opponent would just on its trun to chose the setup, chose any of the 960). The 2 players can replace the third player random environment of the backrank setup;
You have not anser the question
> what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
Are you saying that it is known or already tried that player alternance of choice AND random pairing for such sets of games (which alternating setup choice), can do the same thing.. The question is it is known that random pairing can't accomplish the same thing.. I ask the question, because i have never heard about this other source of randomization being insufficient.
See there are 2 thing in Random 960.. Random and 960.
has 960 with player alternating choices ever been tried.. or what kind of argument other than random is already there, can explain to me why we need not try other smoother transition extension from standard.. something between the nuke em all random 960 and standard, might be player choice 960 (random by player parings). It is possible that I am oblivious to the small scales or tournament pairings, and that my only online experience with big enough pool might be the basis of my thinking, but then please explain to me what outside of this online context makes it not doing what you say it does.
I prefer 960.. Because using Fishcer all the time, may tend to freeze the minds that may cherish Fishcer genius as a player, and visionary about his game proposal. Such reverence, is not an argument for me though.
I think that it might be considered a data point in possible extensions to standard chess, that defintely accomplishes what you are saying.. (but it not doing what others are attributing to it, about learning more than tactical plans, a blur that does not stick in memory over many games is not a basis for learning)(.
status quo being there, is not an argument in itself. it is one data point.. It would not be lèse-majesté to learn form the random Fisher proposal, and also allow a cousin... variant. It would not hurt random 960. and those that are really disciples of it, would not lose it.. I am just trying to bring 960 to the masses. (hahaha).
>
Yes I know that, it eliminates the opening "theory" of long sequences and primarily move based knowledge. With some sparse chess theory to group some of them by position informatino such as pawnstrutures and possible plans all mostly orgarnizsed via move "geneaology".
My question was about the reason for pre-game random being the only thing ever tried to accomplished that with a set like 960 different backranks.
What does that ex-machina (prior to game) back rank randomisation have in that regard that random pairing of some balanced set of games (2 or 4 games) as competition match for rating or tounrnament purpose. Which in my naive thinking could accomplish the same thing, and still enalble position based planning beyond tactical, to be learned from enough repetition within a human learning critical time span (basic stuff). Why not rely of random pairing to ensure that the standard tournament dominating strategy (at least until some level) does not apply to a 960 with that less overkill randomization (it might work but at what price, and could a more suble randomization mechanism that can still allow individual choice but not assurance that opponent would just on its trun to chose the setup, chose any of the 960). The 2 players can replace the third player random environment of the backrank setup;
You have not anser the question
> what is so crucial in the ex-machina random, that random pairing of players can't achieve?
Are you saying that it is known or already tried that player alternance of choice AND random pairing for such sets of games (which alternating setup choice), can do the same thing.. The question is it is known that random pairing can't accomplish the same thing.. I ask the question, because i have never heard about this other source of randomization being insufficient.
See there are 2 thing in Random 960.. Random and 960.
has 960 with player alternating choices ever been tried.. or what kind of argument other than random is already there, can explain to me why we need not try other smoother transition extension from standard.. something between the nuke em all random 960 and standard, might be player choice 960 (random by player parings). It is possible that I am oblivious to the small scales or tournament pairings, and that my only online experience with big enough pool might be the basis of my thinking, but then please explain to me what outside of this online context makes it not doing what you say it does.
I prefer 960.. Because using Fishcer all the time, may tend to freeze the minds that may cherish Fishcer genius as a player, and visionary about his game proposal. Such reverence, is not an argument for me though.
I think that it might be considered a data point in possible extensions to standard chess, that defintely accomplishes what you are saying.. (but it not doing what others are attributing to it, about learning more than tactical plans, a blur that does not stick in memory over many games is not a basis for learning)(.
status quo being there, is not an argument in itself. it is one data point.. It would not be lèse-majesté to learn form the random Fisher proposal, and also allow a cousin... variant. It would not hurt random 960. and those that are really disciples of it, would not lose it.. I am just trying to bring 960 to the masses. (hahaha).
