I was amazed to see a Fischerandom chess tournament advertised on WORLD CHESS LIVE as “Chess 960.”
Bobby Fischer invented this chess variant; and while the man himself didn’t, as far as I know, insist it be named after him, Svetozar Gligoric, writing the first book about this new form of chess, had no hesitation in naming it after Bobby.
Maybe now that Bobby is dead, and the USCF has made whatever money it can off of this occurrence, it is not too much to ask that in the United States, at least, and in whatever official rules we have, that it be called “Fischerandom” in honor of our greatest player.
Chess 960 seems to be the more common name for FischerRandom. The reason they call it Chess 960, is because of the specific requirments needs to generate the 960 possible starting positions.
Mathmatically, there are several thousand different starting positions. I think the Chess 960 requires that you have 1 bishop for each color, and the king has to sit between the rooks. Although I’d have to look it up to be sure. Not really in the mood to look it up though, since I don’t play random chess.
Yes, there are 960 possible arrangements for the pieces in Fischerandom. That’s the way Bobby invented it.
Frankly, I suspect that the “Chess 960” term came about in a deliberate attempt to slight Bobby for his non-chess related activities and statements. It in effect hides the inventor behind a number.
And when the day comes when the world’s leading players get tired of regurgitating lines of the Slav, the Ruy Lopez and the Najdorf, and they turn to Fischerandom out of sheer boredom, they will forget or reject, like the USCF and the spoiled players of today (except when it comes to raising membership with a special discount or selling a book), the person who made it possible to escape the tyranny of the machine and prepared analysis will be hidden behind that number.
Some may think that ironic justice. I think it’s wrong and an act of supreme ingratitude.
The content of Gligoric’s book, “Shall We Play Fischerandom Chess?”, does not match its title as closely as you might expect. Large portions of his book are about Fischer unrelated to FRC, or are about the history of shuffle chess variations.
The parts that are about FRC are a few lightly annotated games, and an unnecessarily long/complex explanation of the simple castling rule. Links:
The annual August chess960 tournaments and matches in Mainz Germany have taught us something: namely, we have already learned all we are ever going to learn from RANDOM chess960. It is time for nonrandom chess960.
Best would be combine the start position stability of traditional chess, with the broader choice of sensible start positions of chess960. A ‘different’ start position is not the enemy, but a ‘random’ start position for each game is.
To a company that sponsors chess, I recommend that a pre-announced multi-year commitment be made to the start position RNBBKNQR. This particular start position is designed to show how big our gaps in chess opening principles really is. Only by deep testing of a second start position can we get a measure of variability, to expose the gaps in our knowledge.
By happy coincidence, this start position RNBBKNQR is reachable by legal moves in traditional chess1 (after 1. e23 e76).
Well, I don’t think I suggested that Gligoric’s book was comprehensive, just that it was the first.
I really am not sure that “learning all we have to learn” is the point.
The problem with standard set-ups for a year or so is that once again computers will be called upon to prepare openings for players. This is like starting a race like the Indy 500, then stopping and finishing on foot.
I see it differently. Computers are not the direct problem, they merely facilitate the problem. The problem is excessively repetitive opening sequences in traditional chess, which endlessly resuses one start position.
Even with Fritz, it would take grandmasters a decade to reach a stage of as much repetitiveness in RNBBKNQR. For the first few years, opening novelties would routinely occur in move-pair 4 or 5; instead of in move-pair 14.
This nonrandom chess960 would produce opening moves that get better and therefore also get more interesting to enthusiasts who replay and study grandmaster chess(960) games. In contrast, opening moves from Mainz are not getting better, so there is less interest in studying them.
First, you have hijacked the thread. If you want to argue for your version of non-Random Fischerandom, that’s fine, but please start another one.
Secondly, by “studying” I think you mean “memorizing.” Yes, there is also analysis. But in the end, what will count, once again, is the relative speed with which machines can crack a “non-Random” random position.
Bobby’s invention – which people who insist on the zombie-like 'Chess960" deny him credit for – is to take this whole business out of the equation.
I also expect that it would make cheating more difficult – not impossible, but a greater challenge.
But, for the record, I very much enjoy the traditional chess, and have no reason to expect I will ever be that strong a player where it starts to get boring.
It is time for nonrandom chess960.