Those who play badly in chess, also play badly in chess 960. Randomness of starting positions only makes it more interesting for good chess players. Who here believes to be as good player as Fischer? I haven't seen a single grand master posting here.
Pal Benko:
“The continual refinement of technique and assimilation of knowledge, particularly in the openings,will gradually lead to the extinction of the game – it will be solved, played out… Most of the blame – if that is the word – must fall on the vast store of opening information that is available to every player (and every computer). The amount of study a master has to do to remain up to date in the openings would suffice for a college education. If he neglects his studies his score suffers. I think this corrupts the essential nature of chess, which is a fight between the creative ideas of two individuals. The vast array of predetermined opening variations and theories is, in my view, so much dead weight that should be discarded to save the true values of chess… The task, then, is to find a minimal change in the rules that would retain as much of the present game as possible and yet eliminate its worst feature, the over-analyzed starting position. … The placing of the pieces has a strategy all its own … It is clear that neither player, if he is alert, can get a serious disadvantage in this phase… Although White still has the first move, this gives Black the potentially important first clue as to how to place his own forces. It seems to me that for this reason the chances of the two sides are more nearly equal in Pre-Chess than in the standard game and that this will have the effect of producing not more draws but more exciting chess.”
“The continual refinement of technique and assimilation of knowledge, particularly in the openings,will gradually lead to the extinction of the game – it will be solved, played out… Most of the blame – if that is the word – must fall on the vast store of opening information that is available to every player (and every computer). The amount of study a master has to do to remain up to date in the openings would suffice for a college education. If he neglects his studies his score suffers. I think this corrupts the essential nature of chess, which is a fight between the creative ideas of two individuals. The vast array of predetermined opening variations and theories is, in my view, so much dead weight that should be discarded to save the true values of chess… The task, then, is to find a minimal change in the rules that would retain as much of the present game as possible and yet eliminate its worst feature, the over-analyzed starting position. … The placing of the pieces has a strategy all its own … It is clear that neither player, if he is alert, can get a serious disadvantage in this phase… Although White still has the first move, this gives Black the potentially important first clue as to how to place his own forces. It seems to me that for this reason the chances of the two sides are more nearly equal in Pre-Chess than in the standard game and that this will have the effect of producing not more draws but more exciting chess.”
@hangrad "Randomness of starting positions only makes it more interesting for good chess players."
It depends on definition of good player. I think both chess960 both Bronstein chess has the advantage of eliminating opening theory knowledge differences and this is good for titled players but good for club level players also. At the lowest level, where players has no opening knowledge at all, this doesn't count of course :)
It depends on definition of good player. I think both chess960 both Bronstein chess has the advantage of eliminating opening theory knowledge differences and this is good for titled players but good for club level players also. At the lowest level, where players has no opening knowledge at all, this doesn't count of course :)
I think this chess variant should be added to Lichess.
The vast majority of games between average players are decisive, and draws usually occur in the endgame. I can't think of why variants that make opening theory useless would change this pattern.
The problem of complex opening theory leading mostly to draws is for players who are good enough to know the theory. For most players, it's irrelevant.
The problem of complex opening theory leading mostly to draws is for players who are good enough to know the theory. For most players, it's irrelevant.
@gbtami My definition of a good player: a player who has FIDE classical ratings of at least 2750.
My promotion and enjoyment of pre-chess is not that it does away from set opening lines that have evolving evaluations based on practical play and computer analysis (aka "theory") but rather that pre chess expands the theoretical landscape exponentially from one starting position to over 8 million. It would lead to more generalized debates about proper piece placement, the benefits of castling and the build up to middle-game.
In short, it would be more like actual warfare.
The way that we study openings would also radically change as it hearken back to ancient forms of chess that used the term to describe starting formations.
Since the players starting formation is determined by the player we could still see theoretical lines debated, even Classical chess could still be played.
I find it very strange that this variant does not exist online. Is it really that hard to code the piece dropping phase ?
In short, it would be more like actual warfare.
The way that we study openings would also radically change as it hearken back to ancient forms of chess that used the term to describe starting formations.
Since the players starting formation is determined by the player we could still see theoretical lines debated, even Classical chess could still be played.
I find it very strange that this variant does not exist online. Is it really that hard to code the piece dropping phase ?
Given playing sites tend to have board editors, piece dropping should be easy. It's coding the rules for dropping and castling that would take some effort, and allowing for two players to participate in setup. If you want to play here now, one player could do the setup for both and invite the other to play, if I have that right. You just have to find an opponent on your own.
The problem with adding variants, generally, is that there is a huge number of them with a small interest in each, and lots of other things to do. They also fragment the player pool.
Pre-Chess is offered on chessvariants.com. It's a Java applet, so it might be problematic.
The problem with adding variants, generally, is that there is a huge number of them with a small interest in each, and lots of other things to do. They also fragment the player pool.
Pre-Chess is offered on chessvariants.com. It's a Java applet, so it might be problematic.
We already have an active thread for player looking to pair up and use the editor board to create the games. @gbtami and I already played a game. He might be open to playing you as well.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/open-challenge-for-bronstein-chessplacement-chess-matches?page=4#33
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/open-challenge-for-bronstein-chessplacement-chess-matches?page=4#33
#57 coding is not hard. Hard is to to get some people to play it. Hence event the small effort is small enough compared to what was gained. Try to get live opponent on 960 in chess.com. good luck with that
Bronstein chess would be even harder.
Bronstein chess would be even harder.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.