An important point about chess960/FRC is obscured by Fischer's over emphasis about the repetitious openings problem in static chess. Chess960 contains many new and *interesting* issues for players to deal with. For instance, there are some setups where castling to either wing poses certain problems: some players may decide it is safer to protect the king in the center rather than castling the king to either wing. This is rarely and issue in the one static chess setup.

By exclusive adherence to static chess we have been and are still missing out on a lot of interesting aspects of pure chess.

As you said, club players, with USCF ratings approx 1500, do not memorize openings 30 plies deep. Nor do their own tournament games show heavy repetition of moves into the early middle game. But 1500 rated players do enjoy spectating (replaying) grandmaster games. Some of the potential enjoyment is lost from us seeing the same basic opening play over and over and over. When I replay a master game of the Sicilian Defense, I do not pause and mull the move 3. d24 because I have seen it a billion times. I often hurry past the first phase of the game until the game begins to look more unique. That never happens when replaying a master game of chess960.

I have seen the maneuver Bc1g5 (or B-N5 generally) a billion times too. I am tired of seeing this same maneuver repeatedly so many times. This particular maneuver is particular to the one static chess setup. There are dozens of maneuvers we rarely get to see because they are laden in the other 959 setups. Why is missing out on them a good thing?: it is not a good thing. Why was it good that National League Baseball fans never got to watch Babe Ruth play (before the era of inter-league play)?: it was not good.

If chess960 had been among the many massive rule changes implemented in the 1400's, nobody today would be saying "We should eliminate 959 of the setups and reuse the same one all the time for every game. That way we could figure out and memorize the first phase of the game like it was a mere puzzle". The very silliness of that imagined scenario tells us something bad about static chess. In contrast, I see nothing silly about the logical reasons for considering inclusion of chess960. I think a lot of chess players are emotionally glued to what they were raised with regardless of merit.

(I hope there is not a negative tone in what I wrote here, that would not be my intention.)

Both are quite engaging, and there is no unsoundness, as both players have a chance at starting on both sides. The gameplay over-the-board also gives rise to (by necessity) innovations not seen in the standard game. For those just tuning in, these extensions of chess are to enhance the chessplayer's options, not to form a coup and take over the position of standard. There should always be common ground, and if the FRC players did not like the standard, they would of course, not delight in looking at the master games here! The heterodox chess games add a dimension to the chess culture which is needed. It refreshes, "cleanses the chess palate" so to speak, and lets players practice tactics in new territory.

As for myself: I am not tired of regular chess, but I can understand why Fischer got tired of it -- too much dependency on memorized openings. FRC lets you jump right into the fun part of chess - strategy and innovation!

Another possible change in chess is the possibility to capture your own pieces. I have never tried this so far. This is of course possible in FRC as well as in classic chess. I assume the complexity of the game should rise.

Don't kid yourself. That is not why Fischer stopped playing chess. The actual reasons are similar to why he thinks Jews secretly run the world. They are psychological. He couldn't take the stress any more so he longs to destroy what he created or was best at.

That is what 960 is. It is the destruction of a great game. It is not the same game. It may be a very similar game but it is not the same game. If 960 were the standard, we could certainly throw away all our opening books and cds (all that hard work, knowledge and beauty down the drain) but I also wonder if our middle game manuals would have the same worth. I suspect not. And I certainly wouldn't take the same pleasure in all the game collections of great players that I do now. Why study X's games (fill in the blank with any great player's name) when what you are studying no longer exists?

What I am getting at is that I doubt chess and 960 can co-exist comfortably. If 960 gains in popularity, it can only be at the expense of chess.

I don't want to sound paranoid. I don't think FIDE or the USCF will announce tomorrow that 960 has replaced chess and I am still relatively confident that most people who play chess will continue to prefer it to 960.

<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.>

Or <nasmichael> you could teach them some of the theory and they could become better chess players. In the same way anyone would improve at any game or sport.

<If chess960 had been among the many massive rule changes implemented in the 1400's, nobody today would be saying "We should eliminate 959 of the setups and reuse the same one all the time for every game. That way we could figure out and memorize the first phase of the game like it was a mere puzzle". The very silliness of that imagined scenario tells us something bad about static chess. In contrast, I see nothing silly about the logical reasons for considering inclusion of chess960. I think a lot of chess players are emotionally glued to what they were raised with regardless of merit.>

I will take you at your word (that your post didn't have a negative tone), <PSDad> but I do find this a bit silly and borderline offensive or insulting (As if those of us who love "static" chess are fools who can't see the error of our ways.)

I am curiuos (not really but let's pretend so ;-)) though. What will you do when theory does develop around 960? You can't think for a second that ChessBase, Gambit and Everyman won't bring out books for position 427 or 528. Futile as it might seem, they will do so. :-D You should hope then that your game remains a little niche diversion as it is now.

Finally, I'll add that I have played several hundred tournament games and I am 99.9% certain that no two of them are the same after move 20 (maybe even earlier). I could probably say something similar about the many many more casual games I have played. I don't feel I have missed out on anything by not playing this other game you advocate.

Capturing your own pieces would be a variant that I would find uninteresting. It changes the game for sure, but does it make it better?

1 -- 'Traditional' chess setup is one of the possibilities. I look at it as the 'most' studied and played setup.

2 -- It is possible that if we examine the remaining 959 setup, we may find one that is even more dynamic & interesting than the current one.

3 -- Opening/Middle/Ending will not change. It is about control, tempo, supporting pieces. I have played 960 a few times, and the sound principle still applies.

4 -- Strong players will not miss a beat in a playing 960. It is still weak square, unguarded pieces, if-I-move-here-they-move-there, combinations & positions.

5 -- To use an American football analogy, whether it's regulation football, arena football, flag football, 8-men football, it's slight variation, but still enjoyable.

<Don't kid yourself. That is not why Fischer stopped playing chess. The actual reasons are similar to why he thinks Jews secretly run the world. They are psychological. He couldn't take the stress any more so he longs to destroy what he created or was best at.>

Well... I'm certainly not one to defend Fischer's anti-semitism or paranoia, but I find his stated reasons for being tired of regular chess credible.

When GMs prepare for a tournament, I suspect most of their preparation involves studying opening variations used by the other players, and looking for playable novelties to surprise them with. There isn't anything *wrong* with this, but it seems to me that it could be tedious, and not nearly as fun and daring as strategizing over a position that you've never seen before against a live opponent in real time.

Again, I'm not against regular chess at all -- it is a beautiful game. I don't think FRC is a "better" game. I do not want to see regular chess de-valued. But I see FRC as a reasonable variant that has practically all of the same beauty as chess, for people who want their winning chances to be more dependent on tactics and less dependent on memorized openings.

<I'll add that I have played several hundred tournament games and I am 99.9% certain that no two of them are the same after move 20 (maybe even earlier). >

Well said!

Agreed. This is one of the reasons why I don't think regular chess is 'threatened' by FRC.

<How typical of Fischer to want to argue that history is bunk.>

<YouRang> The above is a noble sentiment on your part (although victory because of memorized openings is a bit oversimplified). And I too would have no problem with 960 growing and even thriving if it were not at the expense of chess. But, as I wrote earlier, I don't think that would be the case.

Serious chess is played by relatively few people and I doubt 960 would bring new people to play that game. If 960 grows in popularity, it will be at the expense of chess.

Perhaps I am overly simplistic (It wouldn't be the first time!) but I can't imagine there ever being a US Chess Federation with 90,000 members and a US 960 federation also with 90,000 members. I can't imagine there being a World Open for chess and a World Open for 960 too.

Hmmm. It doesn't seem quite fair to use a statement from one person to malign the motives of another...