7.Nxb7 gives at least an equal position for white

So how is 6...d6 crappy if it leads to an equal position when Black actually had a worse position, AND played a bad move that made it even worse?

<sfm The problem with the truly random version, as you describes, will be that the position could be greatly out of balance.>

But wouldn't that be the fair result of superior skill?

<Theory is in a sense a muzzle that we try to put on our opponent to safeguard ourselves against the possibility of him biting.>

If this were really the case, it should show up in result statistics. There is now a database with more than 3000 Chess960 games:

http://www.chess-960.org/php/show_e...

And there is a project running 960 games on thousands of computers, they are trying to have at least 1000 games per starting position, and these games are then analyzed to see if some structure can be found to the openin part. If there were something to this notion that white has a disproportionate advantage in many positions, I imagine it would have been detected up by now.

http://www.unitedboinc.com/projects...

grischuk win it at icc and this game result illiminate nakamura.

grischuk win the finet crown at mainz while nakamura ended as chess960 world champion 2009, he almost got the ordix!

<Another good example of this principle at work is the game between Levon Aronian and Étienne Bacrot at Mainz in 2005.>

I believe there is very little merit to these rumors. The starting position in the Aronian-Bacrot game you give as a prime example of advantage by white, is position 941. There are 12 games in the chess-960.org database with this starting position. The results are as follows:

Wins by white: 5
Wins by black: 4
Draws: 3

You can search for those games here http://www.chess-960.org/php/show_e... by entering the position number (941) or the starting string (rkrbnqbn) in the appropriate box.

Regarding the NN v Nakamura game, there are 7 games in the database, 3 of them won by white, 3 by black, and 1 draw.

The total statistics are as follows

3167 chess960 games available.
white win : 1376 (43.45 %).
black win : 1258 (39.72 %).
drawn : 533 (16.83 %).

It is a bit too early to draw many conclusions, but I theorize that the reason there are so few draws is the lack of opening theory. Why is it a bad thing that there are fewer draws?

I've also had various engines play the Aronian-Bacrot game, alternating colors, and starting with black to move after 1.e4 which is what supposedly allowed white to mount a major attack in 3 moves, according to you.

Well, as it turns out, no engine in that position ever replied to 1.e4 with 1...e5, the way Bacrot did. And there is no major attack anywhere in sight. The most common reply seems to be 1...f5 and 1...c5 from what I've seen so far.

So it looks like Bacrot got into a bad position simply because he chose some bad moves, not because of any inherent advantage for white in the position

One thing to add: there is nothing at all surprising in the fact that players will make more mistakes in the first few moves when starting from positions for which they lack hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and thousands of hours of memorization of that knowledge. What else would we expect?

More than 3000? With 960 potential starting positions, and assuming "more than 3000" means 3100, that's around 3.2 games per starting position. Hardly enough for a robust statistical sample.

<Many centuries ago, players starting from position 518 (the regular starting position) also tended to make mistakes much more often, since they had very little accumulated memory to regurgitate. It is reasonable to suspect that they also had more fun.>

It is? Frankly, I find such a suspicion is only supportable if one is already convinced that actual chess is boring.

Speaking only for myself, I find dusty old position #518 extremely engaging, enough to keep on playing it every week at the local chess club and every day in online correspondence chess.

<I think there is a good case to be made for Chess960. As I wrote elsewhere here a few days ago, a game that has come to consist of about 50 percent memorization and repetition of the past, is bound to become stale and off-putting to increasing numbers of people who reasonably believe it wouldn't be such a bad idea if chess players had to start thinking much sooner in the game, and if they could hone their skills by actually playing chess rather than memorizing openings and keeping up with novelties. The discovery of anew opening idea is indeed interesting and stimulating work. But the necessary memorization of larger and larger amounts of this data to remain competitive in the game is nothing more than pure drudgery.>

Again, this is only supportable if one already assents to the idea that ordinary chess is boring in the first place.

I find that studying opening theory (and indeed, middlegame and endgame theory) to be extremely stimulating, and I like the fact that the games I play through for enjoyment and study are not only beautiful in their own right, but also help me improve my game. What you call "pure drudgery", I think of as an appealing and rewarding use of my time.

<Imagine a writing genre that gradually includes more and more quotes and less and less original writing, and you reach a point where all serious books in that genre consist of 50 percent quotes and then some corolary to them.>

Or for a better analogy: imagine a group of amateur pianists who start complaining that piano competitions are 'unfairly' biased to those who spent years on scales, arpeggios, and Czerny's études. They object that this turns piano playing into a show of technical ability, rather than an expression of "love" for the piano, and their poor attempts at Händel's "The Harmonious Blacksmith" should be judged as equivalent to a technically flawless performance of Stravinsky's "Trois mouvements de Petrouchka" or the Bach-Busoni "Chaconne in d".

<Nullifidian>
<It is? Frankly, I find such a suspicion is only supportable if one is already convinced that actual chess is boring.>

By the same token, one can say your position is only supportable if one is already convinced that Chess 960 is not actual chess, and that regurgitation occupying up to 50% of the game or more, is more interesting than actual thinking over the board.

Or we could say that your position is only supportable if one already finds extreme intellectual stimulation from comments like: “The usual continuation here is 27.Bd4”

Or we could say that your position is only supportable if one already finds that running out of reliable theory very early is an affront to chess.

<Or for a better analogy: imagine a group of amateur pianists who start complaining that piano competitions are 'unfairly' biased to those who spent years on scales, arpeggios, and Czerny's études.>

Or for a better analogy, imagine if the first half of all concerts had to consist of well-known pieces. Only after they've given us the upteempth regurgitation of, say, The Turkish March, Aleppo Variation, can the performers play their own music.

I am not suggesting Chess 960 should replace classic chess. There is value in this venerable opening tradition. But I think the game might benefit if Chess 960 were made a part of most chess competitions. And I disagree that Chess 960 is not "actual" chess, just because the actual thinking needs to start much earlier.

<Gata Kamsky ‏@IGMGataKamsky 31 May

Looking at the last few world chess champ matches, it makes me sad that chess at present is 80% preparation and only 20% is about the game.

It's time to start looking at one of Fischer's greatest inventions, fischerandom chess. No more teams of helpers, or even draws, pure chess!

Since the demise of the Mainz events, perhaps FIDE should consider at least trying to make fischerandom startup events and ratings.

Another good example of this principle at work is the game between Levon Aronian and Étienne Bacrot at Mainz in 2005.

This is the starting position:

click for larger view
One obvious feature of this board is the weakness of the d7 pawn. Because of this, Aronian had a winning attack in a mere three moves and Bacrot lost the exchange after seven.

1. Pe4 Pe5 2. Nd3 Ng6 3. Pf4 3. Bf6 4. Nc5 Rd8 5. Qb5 Nd6 6. Nxd7 Rxd7 7. Qxd7

Needless to say, Aronian won the game. How is that sort of thing supposed to be even mildly interesting?"

I have analysed a little this starting position. Can someone please check with Rybka960 if there is anything wrong with black's position after 1.e4f5!?

For example: 2.Nd3d6! (2...fe4? 3.Nc5Nf6 4.Nb7!?;2...e5?! 3.f4!) 3.ef5...(3.e5-2.e5) 3...Qf5 4.Ng3Qd7 5.f4c5 with unclear play,

or 2.e5d6 3.Nd3...(3.f4de5 4.fe5c5 and then Bd5,followed by e6.) 3...c6! 4.f4Bc7 5.Bf3Nf7 6.Re1de5 7.Ne5Ne5 8.fe5Rd8,followed by Bd5,

or 2.ef5Qf5 3.Ng3Qa5,with unclear play,

or 2.Qb5...(2.Qd3fe4) 2...fe4 3.Qd7Nf6 4.Qa4e5 5.Ng3Bd5 6.f3ef3 7.Nf3...(7.Bf3c6) 7...Ng6 8.d4ed4 9.Bd4c5,or 9.Nd4c5 ?

Because it seems to me that black is everywhere ok! (And if that is really so,then this position is just one more reason to promote chess960...)

So,what is wrong for black with the initial set-up in the game Aronian-Bacrot,Maintz 2005 ? I believe that nothing is wrong,and that all positions in chess960 are playable for black.