<I think of many colorful chess situations that would be all but lost: back rank mates, smother mates, clearance sacrifices, several types of stalemate, and on and on.> Other situations will arise. An important feature of any game is that all players are subject to the same rules.

It is not intended to supplant it--but I have every right to enjoy them both.

Gameplay modification has not in the past been about crowds or money or database accumulation--it is primarily about the enjoyment of the game itself.

You go ahead and continue to play the standard--I will too! But I am not afraid to re-examine why I enjoy the game in the first place--and regardless of how you play, it is a game to be enjoyed.

And for the option of teaching some more novice (and I am myself not an expert) theory, --many (not all) are uninterested in a lesson. <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.>

They just want to play, and I accommodate them in the best way for them. For those who are interested in game history, standard development--of course, I show them. It can only help them. For those more interested in having equal chances against me, Chess960 helps immensely. How many people have you met who only "know how the pieces move" and nothing else?

Many only want to use what they already know--I may not see them again at the board for months, and they want to play "now", and so Chess960 accommodates the time alloted.

To think that there is only one way to play this game disallows the modifications to the game which actually took place in its progression from Chaturanga to Shatranj Zatrikion to Courier Chess to "Mad Queen" Chess to Italian Free Castling Chess to the newspaper-inspired "White moves first" chess of the early 20th century to theory-driven chess you play today. Each step has been promoted by the players themselves. History of the game is crucial to the understanding of the current game.

And the changes that may be instituted by players.

(see blitz chess, internet chess, email chess, bullet chess)

Fun is the goal, playability is the goal.

<Why study X's games (fill in the blank with any great player's name) when what you are studying no longer exists?>

We study them because they are beautiful, and they inspire new ideas. Why study Latin, or Impressionism? They inspire and/or increase understanding.

So the search for new solutions continues, by GMs, their coaches, game designers, computer programmers, silicon players alike. They approach it from the material position of acquiring database information. There are other programmers, designers, GMs that are approaching the solution from another perspective: investigate the rule base from which we start.

I support the game as it is played. I also support its extension into other areas. As great as this game is, it deserves to go where it wishes. Even into heterodoxy. We cannot limit the ideas this game introduces into the human population, in any of it incarnations. Yoshiharu Habu, Shogi Master, is also an IM in the western version of chess.

Euripides originally said, "How typical of Fischer to want to argue that history is bunk" -- with no reference to Ford. This implies that "history is bunk" is Fischer's view, when in fact he may never have said that, and he may not even believe that. This is what I considered "unfair".

As a young man, I was very interested in how people lived in earlier times; how they got from place to place, lighted their homes, cooked their meals and so on. So I went to the history books. Well, I could find out all about kings and presidents; but I could learn nothing of their everyday lives. So I decided that history is bunk. (1935)>

However, I am still slightly perplexed by your attitude of "fun" and playing games against novices. If you beat a novice because you know a little opening theory, it is hardly something they should be upset by. You aren't cheating. You are simply better then them. Do they really do much better against you in 960 (particularly if they only know how the pieces move)? And couldn't you just play a chess opening you don't know much about or one that isn't as trap-filled (say the English and not the Two Knights)?

<To think that there is only one way to play this game disallows the modifications to the game which actually took place in its progression from Chaturanga to Shatranj Zatrikion to Courier Chess to "Mad Queen" Chess to Italian Free Castling Chess to the newspaper-inspired "White moves first" chess of the early 20th century to theory-driven chess you play today. Each step has been promoted by the players themselves. History of the game is crucial to the understanding of the current game.>

Well, just because the rules have changed in the past (way in the past) doesn't mean that change is inherently good or required. How many people who play other games (take your pick) would really want a change as radical as 960? I know a little bit about the history of the rule changes in chess and I think 960 would be as or more radical as any of the other changes in the past.

<We study them because they are beautiful, and they inspire new ideas. Why study Latin, or Impressionism? They inspire and/or increase understanding.>

Not for me. They would be just dust-collecting museum pieces. Of course, this is a non-issue for now. ;-)

<Unfortunately, having been studied so aggressively, novelties don't come until the 20th move (or later!) and they are refinements, not easily arrived at in many games.>

And some TNs still come quite earlier. But, as I asked earlier, what does that have to do with the vast majority of people who play chess? Book moves are only book moves if you know that is what they are. I know a good bit of theory on the openings I play but I would still assume that my (an above average class/club player) knowledge of any opening is at best half of what a GM knows. Probably less. Chess (with the standard set-up) is truly inexhaustible in practical terms for all us patzers and relative patzers.

<Chess960 is not threatening the standard, nor are its players opting to "destroy" the game you play. Svidler, Leko, Aronian, Harikrishna, Bacrot, play both (quite well, thank you), and haven't deserted the standard for the extension. The goal is enjoyment.>

Well, top GMs would play tiddly winks if they were paid enough for it. :-D

It is hard for me to discuss chess v. 960 without sounding paranoid and perhaps just plain silly. I do stand by my point that 960 can only grow in popularity at the expense of chess. But, as I joked earlier, I don't think FIDE and the USCF will be changing their rules soon...I hope. ;-)

It is hard to avoid paranoia and worry as a chess player. I have been active with chess for around 20 years and I have seen more clubs close then I can count (and the internet, while great in its own way, is still inferior to otb). I have also seen numerous tournaments that were regular events that one looked forward too with great anticipation go by the wayside.

If only our great game were more popular. I don't think that will happen. Chess is too much against the grain of the dominant culture.

Good luck in all your games whether you set up the pieces incorrectly or not. ;-)

Perhaps you still don't get it? Whether the reader recognizes the quotation doesn't matter. You wrote it in such a way that the reader would understand that the quotation represented Fischer's views, when in fact there is no basis for giving that impression.

Would it be fair to attribute any well-known quotation to you, and argue that it is okay to do so simply because it is well-known?

BTW, I am not really accusing you of dishonesty. I think you simply chose a poor way to express your (justifiable) distaste for Fischer. It would not be dishonesty unless the misrepresentation of Fischer's views was intentional (and I don't think it was).

So most modern academic history is bunk?

I gather that you see FRC as a potential "rule change" to chess. But I really don't think there is really any movement underfoot to implement such a rule change. I see FRC as just another variation in the way people might choose to play it.

Even today, people often choose to play different variations. Most of us started by playing "friendly" chess, where: (A) There is no clock. (B) You can touch a piece, and even move it around, but then decide not to move it. (C) If you see that you blundered, you can take back your move if your opponent hasn't moved yet. (D) You could ask for, or even offer, a "take back". (E) You can talk to your opponent.

But even though "friendly" chess has different rules than "formal" chess, those who play it aren't promoting it as a rule change. It's just an alternate choice on how to play. That's about how I see FRC.

Being concerned about the future of chess is another matter. I think there are positive things we can do about that: Support people like Susan Polgar, who are doing great things to promote chess. Write to you local newspaper asking for a chess column, or ask that they consider chess news. [I wrote to my newspaper on two occasions: (1) They didn't carry the story of Kasparov's retirement, and (2) they didn't carry the story of the USA Women's team winning silver in the last Chess Olympiad.] Play chess in public -- it often attracts attention, and stimulates interest. If you get the opportunity, offer to teach chess to a kid.

You are correct on my concerns. I too wouldn't say there is a "movement" to change the rules of chess but it can't be completely dismissed either. Forget Fischer (for obvious reasons), there are serious people out there who have made comments in support of 960 to one degree or another: Nigel Short, in NIC, speculated that it might have to be the future for top-level chess. Just this week, I heard the well-respected author and trainer, Mark Dvoretsky, speculate that 960 might be a solution for top-level chess. He wasn't advocating it by any means but he was at least considering the idea.

I don't think anyone seriously plans on changing the rules for all of us in the great unwashed who play the game ;-) and I don't know how practical it would be to have top players playing 960 while everyone else played standard chess. What would be the effect of that on the game?

So, no, I don't think 960 is taking over any time soon but let's see what the situation is 25 or 50 years from now. ;-)

I agree with you, of course, on the state of the WC. There is plenty of discussion on that at this site.

I appreciate and applaud your ideas to make chess more popular and I can't rule out the idea of another boom like chess had when Fischer won (World Champion Judit Polgar sounds good in that regard.) Perhaps I am just a pessimist but I look at the nature of what most or many people consider entertainment and I can't see chess competing with it.

You may be right about today's culture, but then, chess doesn't have to appeal to everyone, or even most people, in order to be vibrant and marketable.

She wouldn't be my first choice in the field in Argentina but it would be fun and interesting to see what the response would be so, yeah, Go Judit!

I hope not. Particularly considering how largely illiterate email is compared to a well-written personal letter. I bet there are players at playchess.com and the ICC, for example, who have never set foot inside of a chess club and have no desire to do so. :(

<convenience>