tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6011690536420808420.post8000167282529163675..comments2024-02-20T07:50:13.558+01:00Comments on Chess960 (FRC): Ducking Chess960Mark Weekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10101044127493771263noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6011690536420808420.post-42278022135577138502012-06-03T10:40:12.734+02:002012-06-03T10:40:12.734+02:00No one is saying that the goal of FRC is to elimin...No one is saying that the goal of FRC is to eliminate home preparation. That is another myth. There is so much home preparation in Chess960 already.<br /><br />Conduct this thought experiment.<br /><br />Let's say we cloned two identical Nakamura's. One Nakamura only played Chess960 over the board and did no opening analysis at home, while the other Nakamura did as much home preparation on Chess960 openings as he did for traditional chess.<br /><br />Who would tend to win more often? Pretty obvious answer to me!<br /><br />How memory intensive do you want to chess to be? If FIDE creates Chess2 as an interim step towards Chess960 here is what will happen:<br /><br />1) People will be forced to memorize not only the traditional start position but a second huge book of computer analyzed opening lines for what will be an arbitrarily chosen second start position. Why would FIDE want to inflict that on us?<br /><br />2) Chess is not a science, it is a game. Memorizing huge lists of opening lines is wasted energy for no joy. Games are about learning concepts and being creative and having fun as you play an opponent over-the-board. It should be no different for Grandmasters. This is what Chess960 does.<br /><br />3) Chess was not supposed to be about memorizing huge lists of opening moves. Chess was always about understanding concepts. Chess2 does not help restore this balance to chess. <br /><br />Cheers<br />HarryHarryOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15971894954907592580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6011690536420808420.post-50223850413892556022012-06-02T19:02:56.197+02:002012-06-02T19:02:56.197+02:00Mark, as you noted, my judgments about chess960-FR...Mark, as you noted, my judgments about chess960-FRC have evolved since 2005 when I wrote my book.<br /><br />I still believe that chess has a lot more to offer us once we decide that the one traditional start position (or setup) is not the only interesting start position.<br /><br />But I now understand that <b>*stability*</b> on a second setup is essential for the juciest type of progress and entertainment.<br /><br />It is nonempirical to say....<br /><i>"The goal of FRC is to eliminate at-home preparation."</i><br />....because the goal is in the heart of the player. The goal is a matter of taste or opinion.<br /><br />Another chess960 player might feel the goal is to shift to another setup that is not so massively studied, or that is different enough to teach us new principles of openings (no one setup can emphasize them all).<br /><br />Stable adoption of a second setup would enable us all to:<br />(A) Witness the growth of opening MCO/theory from scratch, with contributions and debates by grandmasters plus class amateurs armed with Fritz and LetsCheck. We need a naming scheme planned in advance, btw.<br /><br />(B) Learn whether elite chess must necessarily be so drearily draw-prone. Is the high draw rate the fault of these pieces on this board, or are the people who currently control the particular abitrary rules of chess partly to blame? In the first years of a stable reused second setup, rich opportunities for early opening novelties would abound. And players would not yet have the deep familiarity with the setup and its common positions that currently make it relatively easier to solve new problems over the board while the clock ticks. I believe the draw rate would be lower for the first several years with the second setup, which would be very nice.<br /><br /><i>Discard the "Random" from Fischer Random Chess!</i><br /><br />Thanks, GeneM.GeneMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17760103001033379456noreply@blogger.com