15 August 2009

Randomness in Chess960 Start Positions

Hikaru Nakamura's win at the 2009 Chess960 Rapid World Championship in Mainz (see CCM9: Nakamura, Grischuk, and Rybka) generated so much attention from American chess columnists that it might be worthwhile to collect them all in a future post. One reason for the attention was Nakamura's charisma; another was the event's unofficial designation as a 'World Championship'.

Mig Greengard, who won the CJA's Chess Journalist of the Year award in 2007 and who covers the elite players and their events, wrote two posts about Mainz that touched on chess960: Chess in the Mainztream and Nakamura 180 in Chess960. Although both posts received lots of interesting comments from his many followers, Mig is clearly no fan of chess960. In 'Mainztream', he called it by the old term 'shuffle chess', mixed up the 2007 event with last year's ('Aronian got some consolation revenge by beating Anand in the "Chess960" shuffle chess final last year and the Armenian is also back to defend his title.'), and added this in the comments:

Every year I forget how looking at these shuffle chess positions makes me queasy. In fact it looks like someone already threw up on the board. Often they boil down to relatively normal positions, but jeez. Soooo ugly!

This reminded me of another comment thread from 2005 that I encountered while preparing a preliminary Chess960 FAQ.

acirce: I tried to watch some of the Mainz Chess960 games live on ICC but the opening phase made me physically sick. I literally couldn't stand it. It was okay when they started to reach normal positions after 15 moves or so. • Gypsy: I believe you are telling it as it is (perhaps with just a little bit of dramatic license). This probably has to do something with the way we have trained our neural synapses. • (From Chessgames.com Fischerandom Kibitzing)

I've seen the same sentiment elsewhere, that random chess960 start positions (SPs) can provoke a feeling of queasiness or nausea. I'm not qualified to discuss the neurological underpinnings for this phenomenon, but I can comment on the randomness of the SPs.

***

I conducted an exercise to measure the difference between the traditional start position (SP518: RNBQKBNR) and the other SPs. I did this by calculating the number of squares between

  • the position of each piece in a specific SP's start array, and
  • the position of the same piece in SP518

For example, a start position with Knights on c1 and d1 would include a value of 1 for the first Knight (the number of squares between b1 and c1) a value of 3 for the second Knight (the distance between d1 and g1). If the same SP had a Rook on a1, it would get a value of 0, and a Bishop on b1 would get a value of 1.

Then I added up the values for all eight pieces in each SP. It turned out that all sums were even numbers, so I divided all results by two [see the footnote]. It follows that the sum of SP518 is 0, because all pieces are starting on their traditional squares. The results across all SPs were distributed as follows, where the first column is the total distance between the pieces in an SP and the same pieces in SP518, and the second column is the number of SPs with that total.

  0: 1
  1: 3
  2: 17
  3: 55
  4: 125
  5: 183
  6: 217
  7: 174
  8: 127
  9: 49
10: 9

The three positions where the total difference is 1 are SP230: NRBQKBNR, SP534: RNBKQBNR, and SP614: RNBQKBRN. You would expect SP534, the twin of SP518 with the King and Queen switched, to be in that list, while the other two positions are SP518 with a Rook and Knight switched. With eight pieces in the start array, you might expect more positions with only two pieces switched, but all other switches involve a Bishop and it is not possible to have both Bishops starting on the same color.

Does this method of classifying chess960 SPs give a reasonable measure of a position's randomness? I'll come back to that question another time.

***

Note: There is probably a simple correlation between the results divided by two and the minimum number of two-piece swaps to go from SP518 to the other SP, but I didn't see it before writing this post. If there is a correlation, I doubt it sheds any additional light on the subject.

Later: If I'd thought about it a little more, I would have realized that there is no simple correlation. The start position with Queen and light-squared Bishop swapped (SP533: RNBBKQNR) is distance two from SP518, but involves only a single piece swap.

08 August 2009

CCM9: Nakamura, Grischuk, and Rybka

This year's Chess Classic Mainz has finished (see Preview: Chess Classic Mainz 2009 for links to the events on the official site) and, along with its coverage of the traditional chess events, Chessbase.com provided extensive reports on the chess960 events. For the top chess960 event, Chessbase reported on both days of the four-player, double round robin preliminary inand covered the winners of the three events in

A video wrapup of press conferences is on Nakamura 960 Champion [webcast.chessclub.com]. At 8:05 into the clip, Macauley Peterson asks a question about game two of the final Nakamura - Aronian match. The start position of the game is shown in the following diagram.


Start Position 451

Nakamura had Black, and the game started 1.b3 b5 2.f3 f6 3.d4 f5. When Peterson asked about 2...f6 and 3....f5, Nakamura replied,

The reason I played ...f6 is that at the start of the game I felt with the Bishops on a1 and h1 (and vice versa) that the key was going to be whose Bishops were better. White played 1.b3 and if I play ...g6, he trades off the Bishops and then I can't castle O-O, and whoever gets the first move there would have the stronger Bishop on the diagonal so that's why I played 2...f6. Then after 3.d4 f5 I felt that my Bishop was simply stronger than his because I control all the breaks in the center. I can play ...e5 or ...c5, so even though I lose a tempo I thought it was the right decision to play 3...f5.

A little later, discussing the same game, Nakamura added,

Game two was the one game where the general principle of playing in the center did not really apply. In certain positions you can play more for diagonals or play on the flanks as opposed to playing strictly in the center, but overall I felt that the main principle to follow is to play in the center.

Here is the PGN of that game, courtesy of Chess Tigers.

[Event "CCM9 - Chess960 Rapid WCh"]
[Site "Mainz"]
[Date "2009.07.30"]
[Round "8.1"]
[White "Aronian, Levon"]
[Black "Nakamura, Hikaru"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Variant "chess 960"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "brnnkqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BRNNKQRB w GBgb - 0 1"]

1.b3 b5 2.f3 f6 3.d4 f5 4.Nd3 g6 5.Qf2 Bf6 6.g3 Qh6 7.e3 Ne6 8.Qe2 Nb6 9.Nc3 a6 10.Nc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5 Qg7 12.Qd3 b4 13.cxb6 cxb6 14.Nd5 Bxa1 15. Nc7+ Kf7 16.O-O Bc3 17.f4 Bxh1 18.Kxh1 Qf6 19.Rbd1 Qc6+ 20.Qd5+ Qxd5+ 21. Rxd5 Rb7 22.Nxa6 Ra8 23.Nxb4 Bxb4 24.a4 Bc5 25.Re1 e6 26.Rd3 d5 0-1

I'll discuss other games from CCM9 in future posts on this blog.

01 August 2009

A Dubious First Move with Black

The diagram shows the start position from a game I played recently at SchemingMind.com. I had the White pieces. The most striking feature of the position is the Bishop pair on the h-side aimed at undefended Pawns on the a-side. Note that the players can also castle O-O-O on the first move.


Start Position 095

Inspection of the games from CCRL 404FRC (see my post on Advantage in Chess960 Start Positions Revisited for a discussion of the data) showed that the engines' most popular moves were 1.Nb3, 1.g3, and 1.Nc3, but I liked 1.f4, which was the engines' fourth choice. My analysis of that move showed that Black had acceptable responses in 1...Nc6, 1...Nb6, 1...g6, and 1...f5, plus a few other moves. After 1...Nb6, I had to be careful about 2...Nc4, threatening mate.

Instead of those moves, my opponent played 1...c5, which looked dubious because of 2.g3, the move I chose; it threatens the other undefended Pawn. My opponent felt obliged to play 2...Rc7, ending any possibility of castling O-O-O. I continued to add to the pressure with 3.Nc3, and my opponent quickly fell into insurmountable difficulties. Here is the PGN, courtesy of SchemingMind.

[Event "Chess960: Pyramid challenge from bemweeks"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2009.04.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "bemweeks"]
[Black "Buckaroo Bob"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Variant "fischerandom"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "nnrkrqbb/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NNRKRQBB w KQkq - 0 1"]

1.f4 c5 2.g3 Rc7 3.Nc3 a6 4.Nb3 d6 5.Na5 Kc8 6.b4 g6 7.Qf3 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 cxb4 9.Bxb7+ 1-0

I think this is the first time that I won a chess game in nine moves.

25 July 2009

What's the Logic?

Combining the games I collected for my post on CCM PGN Game Scores together with the CCM games I received from Chess Tiger, which chess960 players have been the most active at Chess Classic Mainz (CCM)? The top five active players are listed in the following table along with the number of games I have on file (there might be some games missing):-

66 Aronian
56 Svidler
53 Bacrot
45 Almasi
34 Naiditsch

GM Levon Aronian's latest CCM appearance was in 2007, where he won the overall title (see Chess960 World Championships for details). Here's the start position of his game against GM Rustam Kasimdzhanov from round two of the preliminary section in that event.


Start Position 383

And here's the PGN, as provided by CCM.

[Event "FiNet Chess960 Rapid World Championship"]
[Site "Chess Classic Mainz"]
[Date "2007/8/14"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Aronian"]
[Black "Kasimdzhanov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Variant "chess 960"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "nrkrnqbb/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NRKRNQBB w DBdb - 0 1"]

1.f4 Nb6 2.f5 f6 3.Nb3 e5 4.fxe6 dxe6 5.g3 Nd6 6.Nd3 Qe7 7.Ndc5 Bf7 8. Na5 O-O 9.Ncxb7 Be8 10.Nc5 f5 11.Qf3 Nbc4 12.Nc6 Bxc6 13.Qxc6 g6 14.c3 Ne5 15.Qa4 c6 16.Nd3 Rb7 17.Bc5 Rc8 18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.d4 Bg7 20.O-O Qd7 21. Bxd6 Qxd6 22.e4 fxe4 23.Bxe4 e5 24.Qc4+ Kh8 25.d5 c5 26.b4 Rbc7 27.b5 Rd8 28.a4 Qb6 29.Kg2 Rd6 30.a5 Qxa5 31.Ra1 1-0

White's first move 1.f4 is easy to understand. It opens lines for a couple of pieces, prepares Nf3, and attacks the Pawn on a7. Black's response 1...Nb6 is also straightforward. It blocks the attack on a7 by developing the Knight to its natural square. Then there's a mystery -- what to make of 2.f5?

In Differences Between Chess and Chess960, I wrote that regarding the Initial moves, in chess 'Moves are chosen according to repertoire, respecting chess logic as necessary', while in chess960, 'Moves are chosen according to chess logic'. What's the logic behind 2.f5?

Here's my answer: If White plays something straightforward like 2.Nb3, Black will answer 2...f5, maintaining the symmetry along with the balance (or equilibrium) in the position. With 2.f5, White prevents Black from getting this easy equality. The advanced Pawn on f5 is not in any danger, because: (1) It is protected against any immediate attack by the Queen on c1, and (2) Black must eventually play ...g6 (or ...g5) to develop the Bishop on h8, when the f-Pawn can be swapped off by f5xg6. • Does this make sense to you or do you have a better line of reasoning?

18 July 2009

Preview: Chess Classic Mainz 2009

Four and a half months after my post on Chess960 @ CCM9, the biggest chess960 event of the year starts in just a few days. Chess Tigers' home page, Chess Classic Mainz 2009 (CCM9), announces the official dates and venue as 27 July - 2 August 2009, at Rheingoldhalle, Mainz, with three chess960 events scheduled.

I'll carry the results as soon as I can.

11 July 2009

Differences Between Chess and Chess960

In Chess960 FAQ, one of the questions was 'Can chess and chess960 co-exist?' The short answer is: 'Yes, of course they can!' The long answer is: 'Look at the following table.'

The table shows what I think are the main differences between chess and chess960. The first column describes the way chess is tackled by good players. The second columns describes how chess960 can be tackled. The two ways of playing are not incompatible. Chess will appeal to some players; chess960 will appeal to other players; both might appeal to certain players (like me).

>>> Differences between Chess and Chess960 <<<
 ChessChess960
Number of SPs:1 (SP518: RNBQKBNR)960 (incl. SP518)
Opening Theory:Under development since mid-19th centuryAlmost none
Home Preparation:Develop an opening repertoire; study opponents' opening repertoiresStudy generalities applying to families of positions
Software:Large databases with 100s or 1000s of example games incorporating a specific, familiar opening positionSmall databases with a few games for each SP
Initial moves:Moves chosen according to repertoire, respecting chess logic as necessaryMoves chosen according to chess logic
Speed of play:Play first moves quickly while position is familiar; play more slowly when end of repertoire reachedConsider the start position carefully before making the first move; play slowly starting with the first move
Psychology:Choice of opening moves says something about player's style and objectivesChoice of moves says something about player's understanding of general chess principles
Middlegame:Standard plans for the chosen opening often known and documented; frequently possible to discern which opening led to positionOften difficult to follow a standard plan or to discern which SP was used for game
Endgame:Usually indistinguishable

SP: Chess960 Start Position

***

I added a widget for Mahalo.com to the bottom of the blog.

04 July 2009

Ten Tabiyas


After 10...O-O

Here are the first ten tabiyas I found using Google. In 2009, how many chess positions could be counted as tabiyas? 100, 1000, 10.000, ...

  • 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 Qc7 7.Be3 Nf6 8.O-O Be7 9.f4 d6 10.Qe1 O-O (top10chess.com)

  • 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 Nc6 8.Qd2 O-O 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.O-O-O Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 Nc4 13.Bxc4 Rxc4 14.h5 Nxh5 15.g4 Nf6 (everything2.com)

  • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.O-O exd4 7.Nxd4 Be7 (chessforallages.blogspot.com)

  • 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Nd5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 O-O 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4 bxa4 14.Rxa4 a5 15.Bc4 Rb8 (chessvibes.com)

  • 1.d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O (qualitychess.co.uk)

  • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3 d6 8.a4 Rb8 9. d4 Bb6 10.Na3 Bg4 11.axb5 axb5 12.Nxb5 O-O (latimes.com)

  • 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5.f4 dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Be3 Bf5 8.Nc3 e6 9.Nf3 Be7 (dorigo.wordpress.com)

  • 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Qf3 Rb8 9. Bxc6+ Nxc6 10.Qxc6+ Nd7 11.d3 Be7 (chessgames.com)

  • 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Be7 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.O-O O-O 10.Re1 Nf6 11.a3 b6 (jeremysilman.com)

  • 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.Nc3 e6 6.O-O Be7 7.d4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 d6 (chessville.com)

What's the connection with chess960? There isn't any connection. I don't believe tabiyas exist in chess960.