FISCHERANDOM CHESS: Chess960 Random Position Generator

Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players ·

Kibitzing









position # random

FEN: brnnkbqr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BRNNKBQR w KQkq -

How to Use This Page

This page is used for generating a random position to play Fischerandom Chess. Every time you reload this page, or press the new position button, a different position will appear. Just set up a chessboard based on the diagram above, find an opponent, and have fun.

Quick Rules for Fischerandom Chess

Fischerandom Chess is played with a normal chess board and pieces. All rules of Orthodox Chess apply except as otherwise noted.
The initial configuration of the chess pieces is determined randomly for White, and the black pieces are placed equal and opposite the white pieces. The piece placement is subject to the constraints:

the king is placed somewhere between the two rooks, and
the bishops are on opposite colors.
pawns are placed on each player's second rank as in Orthodox Chess.
There are 960 such configurations.
Castling, as in Orthodox chess, is an exceptional move involving both the King and Rook. Castling is a valid move under these circumstances:

Neither King nor Rook has moved.
The King is not in check before or after castling.
All squares between the castling King's initial and final squares (including the final square), and all of the squares between the castling Rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the King and Rook.
No square through which the King moves is under enemy attack.
The movement of the King and Rook during castling should be easily understood by players of Orthodox Chess:

When castling on the h-side (White's right side), the King ends on g1 (g8), and the rook on f1 (f8), just like the O-O move in Orthodox chess.
When castling on the a-side (White's left side), the King ends on c1 (c8), and the rook on d1 (d8), just like the O-O-O move in Orthodox chess.
Sometimes the King will not need to move; sometimes the Rook will not need to move. That's OK.

The object is to checkmate the opponent's King. Have fun!

Audio file of Bobby Fischer explaining Fischerandom

fischerandom.mp3 (MP3 format)

< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 52 · Later Kibitzing>
Aug-15-05		azaris: Really, really big glasses.

Aug-15-05		ughaibu: About the hammer thrower, it's interesting to wonder why athletes are drawn to particular events, or variants so to speak, particularly to the hop, step and jump. It's not as if it's an activity with any practical application.

Aug-15-05		tamar: And a kryptonite thermos...

Aug-15-05		Gypsy: < ughaibu: About the hammer thrower ... > In the case of Bobby (his nickname after the hockey great Bobby Orr) it was the sense of a club community he liked. He was a gargantuan kind of man; fairly burly and strong, but also an excellent runner. He would have made an excellent poll vaulter or an outright decathlonist. But Bobby was also a home-brewed philosopher and a very sanguine person (one of the most sanguine I ever met) and he had no interrest in playing the steroids game; he felt it lowered the life expectancy too much. (Some regionally prominent athletes of that era went from the regional prominence to meddal performances at Europen level to testicular cancer in a few short years.) So, to summarize, Bobby liked to hang around the local track and field club, partly for the sport but mainly for the community. He competed at the divisional level with the team, and more often than not, the team was short on the heavy men. Bobby, with his speed and strength made a decent hammer thrower, and he just got stuck with it. And on the purpose of things: I have not realy found a higher purpose in any human activity, or even existence -- not in sports, arts, chess, business... From the standpoint of eternity it all seems about the same. So why not hammerthrow?

Aug-15-05		Montreal1666: I think FRC is mainly appealing to GM's who have already mastered the opening theories and would like to play a couple of games for fun or would like to measure their playing strength if the home preparation was taken away. Amateurs, like us, who have still tons of opening theory to learn should concentrate on regular chess. One very good application for FRC is the Man vs Machine matches. Computer chess companies have started putting some serious efforts into FRC.

Aug-15-05		Bent Bexley: Let us say that I am a very dedicated fianchetto player. I open all my standard chess games with 1.g3 and then I move the white-squared bishop onto g2 on the next move. Say I like the positions that come from that opening. You would have to agree that they are unique or distinct positions. How will I continue to play these type of positions under many of the FRC starting ones? Also, who is FRC for? As I have written before, if (IF!) there is a problem with chess it is at the very highest level (less then 1% of the people who play chess) and not for all us patzers or relative patzers. Are there thousands and thousands of 15 or 1800s out there who are playing 30 moves of theory and then shaking hands in all of their tournament games? I doubt it. With no offense meant to anyone, I sense that the people among us average or regular club players who advocate FRC replace standard chess are frustrated players who blame opening theory for their lack of success (as if an 1800 needs to know all variations of opening X or Y 25 moves deep). News flash, guys. If you aren't as good as you'd like to be at standard chess you almost certainly won't be at FRC either.

Aug-15-05		tamar: Watching Playchess the other day I had to admit that the opening moves did resemble a seashore with newly hatched baby sea turtles scrambling to reach the sea before being swooped up by seagulls, but it is likely that there are elegant solutions to each position out there to be discovered that are as pleasing aesthetically as regular chess. The only question is whether there anyone could solve them spontaneously. That would be an indication of great talent.

Aug-15-05		Gypsy: <Bent Bexley ... the people among us average or regular club players who advocate FRC replace standard chess are frustrated players who blame opening theory for their lack of success ...> Lol! Well, now you pegged me agains the wall. No, my friend, I can lean upon the cane made of opening theory as well as anybody; and better than most. I just found it quite enjoyable to play openings by the seat of one's pants here and there. (And I do wonder if the 960 chess will be a possible venue of play then the members of the Fritz gang increase their strength by another 100-150 Elo points.)

Aug-15-05		Gypsy: Speaking of different ways of learnig: I have been told that photographic memory tends to be a mixed blessing. The people so endowed tend not to develop the skills of making abstractions and of logical synthesis -- that is, not at the same level as those of us who's memory works in the ordinary ways.

Aug-15-05		tamar: Aronian had some interesting quotes after winning the open section of 960. “I particularly liked the game against Bacrot, because I had a winning position after only four moves! Only in the game against Graf I had a difficult position, but in the end I outplayed him. I really like to play Chess960. It is not important to play good moves, you must have a good plan”. http://www.chesstigers.de/ccm5_inde...

Aug-15-05		micartouse: I find some value in FRC. I'll share a personal experience with it. At a local club, I played against a weaker opponent who I beat at least a dozen times without losing or drawing in casual play. We tried FRC for fun, and we had a calculator handy to do the random number generator. Despite the fact that I tried very hard, he won his first game against me. Then he won again. It made me realize how reliant I am on theory and knowledge of the initial position. If I really want to improve at chess, I have to learn simply to think better, concentrate harder etc., and this experience helped bring that to my attention. However, although it's interesting and I would like to see it developed for its own merits, I believe FRC will always be a fringe variant. <Gypsy> Your comment about different ways of learning struck a chord with me. I have a strong memory, but my inability to make abstractions and think logically is ridiculously weak, and it has prevented me from being a good strategical player. I'm not sure I have the willpower to overcome this deeply ingrained fault, and I may always just be a trap setter. :(

Aug-15-05		micartouse: Sorry. Change my last post from "inability" to "ability."

Aug-16-05		ughaibu: I haven't found a good triple jump forum yet but here's something: http://www.myjjk.com/viewtopic.php?...

Aug-16-05		ughaibu: http://www.usp.br/eef/biomecan/trip... http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/tri... http://www.coacheseducation.com/hor... http://www.boja.org/jump_triple.htm http://steybe.freeservers.com/jumpi... http://www.coachr.org/tj.htm http://www.coachr.org/comtj.htm http://www.converse.com/zproductdet... etc.

Aug-16-05		Akavall: Is there a name for the variant in which white and black both start out random (no symmetry)? I seem to always find it as a sub-variant of shuffle chess... Thanks in advance.

Aug-17-05		Eggman: <<I don't see the attraction at all. The vast majority of people who play chess don't have the problems in their games that FRC advocates claim plague super-gm chess ...>> I agree with Bent Bexley on this point. Fischerandom Chess is essentially for SuperGMs, GMs and possibly IMs, but essentially pointless for 1700 players, etc.

Aug-18-05		popski: Here is my chess variant, called NeoRandom Chess: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/NeoRan... I'll be glad to see your comments. Thank you.

Aug-18-05		ripper: Where can i find games played under Fischerandom rules?

Aug-18-05		micartouse: <popski> Actually I like your variation better than FRC because it doesn't require a random number generator, so two people with a board are ready to go. The strategy begins right away. It would be horrendously difficult and require a lot of creativity and lateral thinking. Nice job, I'll probably try it with a friend if you don't mind; I'd be curious to see if it has any serious flaws.

Aug-18-05		popski: <micartouse> Thank you for your response! I'll be glad if you'll try it and please do tell me if you will find any flaws.

Aug-19-05		nasmichael: To <Eggman> and others: FRC (Chess 960) is for people who like gameplay. The game, and it is a game, is for folks who want to have fun! If you don't like it, fine--play something else. Part of this discussion is like Monopoly players logging in to tell us chess players that this abstraction is a waste of time. No need to run it down if you don't like it. Don't play, don't let it take away from your enjoyment of the "standard" game. I often play FRC when I am up against a player who feels my exposure to historical games or theory gives me an unfair advantage. Since my goal is to play a game and enjoy myself, I offer Chess 960--I take the position number from the date, or I ask her/him to pick a number between 1 and 960. We play, and enjoy our game. Someone mentioned that <Amateurs, like us, who have still tons of opening theory to learn should concentrate on regular chess.> It is not the "job" of amateurs to "learn" tons of opening theory. The "job" of amateurs, by definition, is to love the game. <amar>, to love--is the root of the word <amateur>. You can love the game in so many ways, and FRC is one of them. So is Shogi. Play, and let play.

Aug-24-05		Akavall: Where can you play FischerRandom chess online and actually get a game? I mean you can play at FICS, but I can never get a game there.

Aug-24-05		ughaibu: BrainKing

Aug-24-05		nasmichael: Tuesdays at 1300 server time they have a tournament for FRC players. Also make a request of one of the TMs and they will set a tournament up for you. I don't have a problem getting a game.

Aug-24-05		nasmichael: ...at FICS. By the way, Hi, <Ughaibu>. Always good to see your name.

Jump to page # (enter # from 1 to 52)
search thread:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 31 OF 52 · Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
Nothing in violation of United States law.
No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
No trolling.
The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.