According to the USCF Rulebook Changes page (since 5th edition rulebook), one new rule states that “Fischer 960 Chess: The USCF adopts appendix F of the FIDE Laws of Chess for Chess 960 (Fischer 960).” This provides the basic rules for piece setup and castling. There’s no discussion about rating this variant, but this seems appropriate given its relative lack of popularity. However, I would like some guidance on how to best set up an event using the variant. I know the answers would differ whether this was a class event with small prizes or a showcase GM event to promote the format, but whatever opinion you have is welcome.
Some questions:
Same position on each board? (if same, some players may just copy the neighbor’s move)
Same position for each round? (continuity vs. outside help between rounds)
Online, I’ve seen a solid strategy for black is to just play whatever white does for the first several moves - which is probably pretty sound since it can generate a decent time advantage without compromising the position too much if at all. To prevent this and raise quality of play, should there be an untimed session (~5-15 minutes?) at the beginning of the game for both players to strategize?
How much time should there ideally be in between announcing the position and starting the round? Does announcing the position start the round, thereby making later computer consultations illegal?
What aspects of a tournament are maybe not yet FR-ready? (electronic and paper scoresheets, illegal move rules (castling) and penalties, initial setup error rules and penalties)
Does anyone know of other good F-R rules that should supplement what’s already in the rulebook? I think the current rules should state who’s responsible for recording the initial position, but I’m not sure what else.
There was a Fischer Random / 960 side event at the World Open a couple of years ago. The way Bill Goichberg ran it was to announce the starting position at the start of each round. The same position was used on every board, and there was a different starting position each round.
If that’s a problem we have the same problem with classical chess. It’s simpler to have the same position on every board instead of generating a unique position on each one, and it’s interesting to see how different players plan their games based on the same initial setup.
I think having a different position each round is more in the spirit of making players think for themselves.
We didn’t do that at the World Open. White has an initial advantage because he has the first move. It sounds dangerous to me for Black to simply copy White’s moves without thinking about them. He could easily slip into an inferior or maybe even a lost position that way.
At the World Open the setup was announced at the start of the round and there was no time for analysis before the game started. There were only a few players and if I recall correctly all the players were at their boards at the start of each round, at least for the rounds that I watched as a floor TD. Bill Goichberg didn’t have to rule on the question of whether computer analysis was allowed before the games began. I think he probably would have disallowed it.
The players at the World Open kept score on paper scoresheets, with a record of the initial setup. Other than the special rules for castling and the initial position I think the other rules were all standard. We didn’t run into problems like the initial position being set up incorrectly.
These were helpful insights, especially since your cited event was a nice average between club and GM events - thank you for sharing. I tend to disagree with your assessment of #3 about move copying since I didn’t mean to suggest that Black literally blitz back the same move but rather that if White spent 5 minutes on move one, Black could probably take 30-60 seconds to confirm the wisdom of White’s thought process and act accordingly. However, since more data is needed on that supposition, I agree that your position should probably be the default. Also, of note in your favor, I am sure that there are certain F-R positions where White’s advantage from move one is even greater than that in regular chess.
I’ve run many F/R tournaments since 2002. These were blitz tournaments, but included lots of GMs and a wide variety of players over the years.
Everyone uses the same position each round — which I think is best to display using a demo board for all to see.
We would give the players a minute or two to familiarize themselves with the position before starting clocks. This is enough to see which squares are weak (undefended) and notice a few other peculiar features of the position which can guide their opening ideas. I would do the same thing for a full-length game.
Notation is the same except the scoresheet needs a place to write the starting position being used. You could do this with five letters in an unused space on a standard scoresheet, such as the “Section” space — just write the pieces there from white’s point of view, left to right, such as “NBRNBKQR”. Of course the black position is a mirror image of that.
I find it is best to generate the random positions for each round in advance of the tournament, write them down, and reveal one each round; as opposed to trying to generate it randomly at the start of each round (although I’ve done it both ways). There are websites that will generate them for you. Sometimes I’ve asked little kids to give us the starting position for the round, which is kind of fun.
Best to announce one non-traditional start setup from FRC in the tournament announcement (weeks before the tournament); all games in every round to use that one non-traditional setup.
I have evolved my FRC thinking over the years, and now believe that this is the most enjoyable way for your customers to play FRC (or FC?).
Much of the fun comes from being able to compare FRC opening strategy between games, which is possible only if the same non-traditional setup is used for every game of the tournament. Growth in understanding from these comparisons is a big part of the fun.
You can reuse that same non-traditional setup in your second FRC tournament too.
Bobby Fischer went too far in his FRC, essentially wiping out ALL planning from the opening phase; to the extreme that even debriefed grandmasters report they had no idea what they were doing in the opening except trying to avoid blundering.
. .
TOM
