< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·
|Oct-17-11|| ||VladimirOo: Anybody knows where to find games of Random Chess ? Some database, or just games alone ?|
|Oct-17-11|| ||Tomlinsky: It hasn't, to my knowledge, been updated in quite some time but there are some interesting games to pore over here for starters ...|
|Nov-25-11|| ||Penguincw: I never knew you can kibitz here.|
|May-11-12|| ||christianbelgien: I am searching for a self-contained Fisher Random Chess position generator to use in the chess club where there is no internet connection. Does anyone have an idea?|
|May-11-12|| ||SimonWebbsTiger: @<christianbelgian>|
might be what you are looking for!
|May-11-12|| ||phycodurus: @<christianbelgian>|
I wrote a position generator for iPhone:
* Generates random starting positions (SP)
* Shows SP for given number
* Shows number for given SP
* Intuitive SP editor
* Handy thumb wheel for SP browsing
|Jun-05-12|| ||GeneM: Discard the "Random" from Fischer Random Chess!
The traditional start setup has been so over-played and over-studied that grandmasters can now only rarely find a stronger novel move in the early or mid-Opening phase. Novelties now usually occur in the middle game.
But if there were still lots of strong novel moves available to find during at-home preparation, those novelties could be sprung over the board to perhaps create advantages large enough to nurture to a decisive outcome.
But the over-played traditional setup has no more early to mid-Opening phase novel moves or systems left to offer.
Where oh where might we find new start setups that still offer numerous strong opening novel moves and even novel systems??
The chess world should choose one sensible start setup from the other 959 of chess960-FRC, and then STICK WITH IT FOR A COUPLE DECADES.
[But which second setup?
(a) No bishops can start on any corner square.
(b) White's two knight must start on squares of the same shade.
I bet the draw rate would be lower for several years under a consistently reused second setup (compared to the suffocatingly enormous draw rate among elite grandmasters with ongoing exclusive use of the over-played traditional setup).
If we mistakenly try to keep the "Random" in FRC, then even grandmasters will be overwhelmed by the mountain of a thousand start setups. No opening systems will develop. Given a new setup, a well-prepared and smart opening system is far more likely to occur on the board. Smart opening play will be more interesting than weak play design mostly on a desire to avoid blunders or on a search for cheap tactics.
Discard the "Random" from Fischer Random Chess!
|Jun-05-12|| ||HeMateMe: Perhaps the next step up in human intelligence will be men and women playing moves as deep as those of the computer programs that everone seems to despise.|
I love to look at the games played by top software, running on a big engine. Very creative work. Maybe the GMs can observe these games more closely, and learn a thing or two. Or three.
|Jun-05-12|| ||Golden Executive: |
<Oct-17-11 VladimirOo: Anybody knows where to find games of Random Chess ? Some database, or just games alone ?>
Here in <CG>? sure!, just click
Leko vs Adams, 2001
|Jun-05-12|| ||SamAtoms1980: <GeneM: The chess world should choose one sensible start setup from the other 959 of chess960-FRC, and then STICK WITH IT FOR A COUPLE DECADES.|
But which second setup?>
There was a nice simple one that I read about in some book, maybe it was <The Even More Complete Chess Addict>. Just switch the knights and bishops; start the knights on c1, f1, c8, f8 and the bishops on b1, g1, b8, g8. The book I read had a special name for this position, but I can't remember what it was. The elite grandmasters would surely end up spending some years recreating opening theory for this new array.
|Jul-19-12|| ||jnpope: Google turned up this term:
<Vaureal Dawn: knights & bishops switch their initial position on board.>
Here is a "Vaureal Dawn" game between Helms and Elwell:
|Nov-10-12|| ||pjl1015: Play 960 on SchemingMind.com|
|Jan-25-13|| ||OhioChessFan: <karban: Technically, I don't like the idea of castling here. I know that is like heresy but it should be abandoned in my opinion - too much messy with it for amateurs and in the end play'd be even more agressive.>|
<GeneM: The chess world should choose one sensible start setup from the other 959 of chess960-FRC, and then STICK WITH IT FOR A COUPLE DECADES.>
I agree, but it will never happen.
|Jan-25-13|| ||Caissanist: Almost no updates here in the last two years. Was this just a passing fad?|
|Feb-02-13|| ||IMFSTJP: 1st Chess960 Singapore National Championship: http://tinyurl.com/ax52u5n|
|May-23-13|| ||marljivi: Chess960 is 960 times better than traditional chess.|
|Oct-19-13|| ||parisattack: <Caissanist: Almost no updates here in the last two years. Was this just a passing fad?>|
Seems, though it still has some hardcore advocates. I think its heyday was around 2000-2005.
As a solution to chess becoming over-analyzed, it would be at best a short-term one. You can't outrun Moore's Law and/or the constant progress in heuristic algorithms - at least with a measly x1000 factor. Then there is quantum computing which is making some real progress of late.
|Jan-08-14|| ||GeneM: No, chess960-FRC is not a mere fad. In his weekly blog devoted to chess960, Mark Weeks uses his post of 2014-Jan-04 to give more statistics about the surprisingly large popularity of chess960 on chess playing websites. While still dwarfed by traditional chess1, more chess960 games are being played than we would have guessed.|
And from one of Mark's 2013 posts:
GM Andrei Deviatkin decided to finish his chess career and announced his decision on his Facebook page: "Maybe I will continue playing Fischer's chess, but the fact that there are no tournaments in this format means that chess is over for me. It's time to try out something else."
"I just understood that chess became an absolutely different game from the one I have played in my childhood and youth. The computer has changed it dramatically."
Still, I think Fischer Random Chess is better without the 'Random' part; as contradictory as that sounds.
|Jan-08-14|| ||RookFile: The genius of Bobby Fischer. He was talking about this form of chess many years before it started to catch on. If you think about it, FRC is closer to real combat - how often do you know exactly where the troops are on both sides prior to the battle starting?|
|Jan-08-14|| ||HeMateMe: It's fun to play, when you're drunk.|
|Jan-08-14|| ||parisattack: <HeMateMe: It's fun to play, when you're drunk.>|
That's about it. No future otherwise. You can't outrun technology.
The computers are even eating the game of Go much faster than anticipated even five years back. The state-space complexity of chess is around 10^45 of Go, 10^150. Adding pieces, squares to chess - assuming you could keep the harmony and balance of classical chess - no real help, either.
|Jan-08-14|| ||Shams: <parisattack> <That's about it. No future otherwise. You can't outrun technology.>|
Isn't the point that memorizing opening variations becomes an impossibility and that keeps the game fresh? I don't see how technological advancements change that. I think 960 has a lot of future, myself.
I do think chess death by opening theory looks like less of a threat now than it did fifteen years ago, given the style of the fellow currently on the throne.
Interesting note about go.
|Jan-08-14|| ||TheFocus: I entered a Fischerandom Tournament.
The position that showed was one with every piece on its natural square. You know, normal chess.
I withdrew and gave up that form of chess.
|Jan-08-14|| ||parisattack: <Shams> I suppose it depends what you want out of the game. If playing a machine-busted game that still is a mystery to the human mind, then there's life in the old girl, for sure. But consider correspondence and email chess - almost dead because so many use engines. |
People still play checkers - but how many young people are growing up with the desire to be in the checkers Elite or WC?
A linear factor of x960 against computational speeds and leading-edge heuristics just won't by much time, really. But then, it can still be fun to play for humans, of course.
Classical chess has basically had a 200 year run. I'd give 960 - even if it caught on which I don't think it ever will - 20 years.
|Jan-08-14|| ||northernfox: IMHO 960 Chess will never attract any significant interest, and will eventually die out. It is not an improvement on the classical game; it is a retreat from the classical game, in particular the intense and extensive experiential (and now computer) analysis of the opening and recurring aspects of the game.|
We already see continuing serious and justified complaint about how difficult it is to make classical chess more "popular", which problem would be magnified at least 960 times for fischerandom!
It will be a mere footnote in chess history.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 46 OF 46 ·