The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles wrote on 2007-08-08 UTCPoor ★
Actually,the proposed rules are more  complicated and the majority of
players playing Fischer Random have no problem with this simple castling
rule where the king and rook are transposed to their respective a-side
h-side castled positions.  . 
>>Fischer is, of course, a brilliant man, but that does not make him a
game designer. I am a game designer and I can tell you that his castling
rules are overly complicated, cumbersome,>>
What qualifies you as a better game designer than him anyway? Did you
design Omega Chess, Gothic  Chess or any other variant shows me well your
design skills are? (I have seen your 'variants' on this site by the way 
- they don't show me that you are a better game designer than me or anyone
else). Besides, it is up to the players to judge if the rules make sense,
and I think the more experienced players have already made their choice. 

I did read your info too. 
The reasons for castling were to speed up the game, and originally many
illogical ideas were thrown about (just like this current illogical
castling proposal). The king's leap, queen's leap were all illogical,
but eventually the current castling rules had to be accepted because they
speeded up the game and also provided the advantages I gave below. Thus,
it is accepted and is considered LOGICAL that the king tucked away in the
wings with rook centralized IS the final castling position. 
Shuffle chess which is the original chess variant has NO CASTLING RULES.


All Fischer did was add the castling rules so that this variant can reach
a middle game situation that is similar to normal chess. And the castled
position on both wings MUST BE THE SAME. Only a simple transposition with
the king and rook is necessary (it is simple as long as you understand
that that the king does NOT HAVE TO LEAP 2 squares!)

The king's leap move you suggested is insufficient for while it seems
simpler for a beginner (who should learn regular chess first anway) - it
is clearly illogical for an experienced chess player. We now have to
visualize that the bunker postition keeps changing with each shuffle and
that this arbitrary position is safer!? There is no point in castling in
many of the positions using your rules.


Why have you delibrately ignored a certain aspect what I wrote about the
'bunker'  as follows: 
>>I understand your 'bunker' concept, but even in this case if the King
is already in his bunker there is no use for castling from that position.
>>

First, the rook will have to move the king to be centralized to satisfy
castling on the same wing. But, if this position is under attack then I
can castle in the opposite wing!!!! Thus under Fischer Rules I am
extracting the king from danger. 
IN your version what happens? 
Say for white the Rook is on a1, the king on b1, other rook on say e1 and
this wing is under attack. I can castle the opposite wing (assume the back
rank is clear) King goes from b1 to g1 and rook on e1 goes to f1. 

In your case castling is useless in either wing. 


The point is you are trying to present castling as a special King move 2
spaces rule but this does not work for shuffle chess, period.  The rules
HAD TO BE MODIFIED to incorporate the advantages of castling. 
If you really hate Fischer castling rules then why not just drop the
castling rule completely, that makes the most sense.