Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The FIDE rule can be stated something like this:
In order to castle...But another statement is also possible, where (1) is replaced with
(1) ...the King moves two squares toward the Rook, and the Rook moves to the other side of the King.
In order for castling to be permissible...
(2) ...neither the King nor the Rook may have moved.
(3) ...none of the King's initial, intermediate, and final squares may be attacked by the opponent.
(4) ...the initial, intermediate, and final squares of the King and of the Rook must be vacant except for the King and the Rook.
(1') ...the King moves to the c-file and the a-side Rook moves to the d-file, or the King moves to the g-file and the h-side Rook moves to the f-file.and (2), (3), and (4) are unchanged.
From the standard starting position, these two statements are equivalent. But when we try to generalize to other starting positions, they differ, and we must choose one or the other (or a third statement not listed here). If we follow (1'), then we have the Fischer rule, with no change to the statement. If we follow (1) and include additional language to deal with the special case where the King begins on the b- or g-file and can't move two squares toward the near edge, then we have the rule proposed here (which I'll call the Lewis rule). Because of the necessity of handling this special case, I consider the Lewis rule to be not cleaner, but less clean than the Fischer rule.
At a glance, the Fischer rule may seem a bit ugly, since it explicitly breaks the symmetry of left-to-right reflection. But this actually makes the game richer, as it allows more possibilities. Under the Lewis rule (or any other symmetric castling rule), there is no meaningful distinction between a starting position and its mirror image, and the game should really be called Chess480.
[1] The historical origin of the chess castling rule is interesting, but it is irrelevant to chess960/FRC. Chess960 is about engineering a better implementation of the basic game of chess. If historical adherence is the goal, then chess960 is ruled out entirely. [2] The problem with the proposed rule, that castling kings move only 2 squares, is that in chess960 it would lead to an even higher draw rate than we suffer in traditional 'chess1'. Opposite wing castling is far too infrequent in chess1 (8% of all games). Yet games with opposite wing castling have a lower draw rate. Chess960 should be engineered to increase the rate of opposite wing castling, not reduce it. In my new book 'Play Strong Chess by Examining Chess960', I discuss all this, plus a modification to the chess960 castling rule that would slightly increase the rate of opposite wing castling. (Search Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk etc for 'chess960', or visit http://CastleLong.com/). Thank you.
There have been some quarrels on what currently is named Chess480 and had first been intended to propose a modification to Chess960. I welcome, that now it has lead to an own, different variant proposal. Chess480 also has been implemented e.g. in the multivariant GUI + engine SMIRF. Nevertheless I personally prefer Chess960 because of following reasons: a) The Chess960 castling rule is consistent, in Chess480 there are small variations, when the king is near to the borders: then he will move castling one step 'shorter'. b) As reflected in the name, Chess960 preserves the natural asymmetry of the chess game supporting 960 different starting arrays. In Chess480 mirrored positions lead to equivalent situations (thus SMIRF proposes only such randomized positions for Chess480, where the white Kings is on white Queen's right side). c) After castling Chess960 positions are looking more similar to traditional chess games after the opening stage. Maybe that is the reason, why the masters will stay with Chess960. Best regards, Reinhard.
I find Mr. Reinhard Scharnagl's preferences interesting, and I'll address each one in turn. Remember, I am biased for the 480Chess method of castling.
a) The Chess960 castling rule is consistent, in Chess480 there are small variations, when the king is near to the borders: then he will move castling one step 'shorter'.
Consistency is in the eye of the beholder. It's true that in Chess480, the king on the 'b' or 'g' file can't make a two square leap to the near side. However I find this highly preferable to similar situations in Chess960 where the King doesn't move at all. Castling without the King moving seems rediculous to me. In Chess480 the King consistently moves and normally two spaces, unlike Chess960 where the King might travel anywhere from 0 to 5 spaces. From my perspective it's Chess960 that's inconsistent.
b) As reflected in the name, Chess960 preserves the natural asymmetry of the chess game supporting 960 different starting arrays. In Chess480 mirrored positions lead to equivalent situations (thus SMIRF proposes only such randomized positions for Chess480, where the white Kings is on white Queen's right side).
It's true that there are only 480 starting positions in Chess480 (hence the name). While you can still play the game from all 960 starting positions of Chess960 for variety, strategically there are only 480 that matter.
Having said that, the stated goal of both Chess960 and Chess480 is to open the game of Chess from it's years of studied opening play. Both games do this. I personally find the asymmetry of Chess960 to be a hinderence to introduction of the game to new players. (Which leads to your final point.)
c) After castling Chess960 positions are looking more similar to traditional chess games after the opening stage. Maybe that is the reason, why the masters will stay with Chess960.
If the masters gain some advantage from the board looking similar to traditional chess after the opening stage, then I think something has been lost from the inspiration of the game. Chess960 was intended to remove the advantage that is enjoyed by those very masters who have studied endless openings. Quoting David Wheeler 'Fischer's goal was to create a chess variant in which chess creativity and talent would be more important than memorization and analysis of opening moves.'. Liberating Chess from the book openings might also require removing from possible opening transpositions to similar openings. Chess960 is much more likely to have this happen as you've noted.
I understand why some who have invested so much time in Chess960 might view Chess480 is some kind of threat. The variant is easier to understand for novices and has many advantages over Chess960. Even hardcore 960 fans admit that the castling rules are overly complicated (they take up the majority of the rules themselves)... but none of them want to leave the rich history of games played in Chess960. I can't blame them. I'm sure players of regular chess didn't want to lose their history either.
The rule itself is very simple:
The king moves to the c-file and the a-side rook moves to the d-file, or the king moves to the g-file and the h-side rook moves to the f-file.
That's it. One sentence (not including the restrictions on when it is permissible to castle, which are identical in all the rules discussed on this page).
The Chess480 rule, even though it was introduced as 'an appeal for simplicity', is no simpler, and arguably more complicated than the FRC rule.
Of course these are not the only possible rules. If I had been asked, before learning about FRC, how the castling rule should be generalized for random starting posiitions, I probably would have said that the king moves half the distance (rounded up) toward the rook, and the rook moves to the other side of the king. This rule is left-right symmetric and matches the Chess480 rule in 11/16 of the possible positions. But without the need for awkward special cases, it is in my opinion simpler.
I am predisposed to like symmetry, and it wouldn't have occurred to me to choose an asymmetric rule like the one in FRC. Yet there is something appealing about the asymmetry, particularly in this context where it produces twice as many actually distinct positions. For this reason I'm still inclined to prefer the FRC rule.
I enjoy the Chess960 variant. I think it is good for Chess and I believe some form of it will be the dominant form of Chess in the future. I would like to propose a slight change to this variant. For now, I'm going to call it Chess960bg or Chess480bg. 'bg' referring to what file the king can castle to. It's exactly like Chess960 (FRC), but the castling rule is slightly modified... (1')The king moves to the b-file and the a-side rook moves to the c-file, or the king moves to the g-file and the h-side rook moves to the f-file. (The FIDE castling rules 2-4 you state below still apply of course.) I believe this could result in more opposite side castling, since the king would be the same distance from the center, regardless of which side he castles to. This could lead to less draws. I also believe this would make it simpler to teach castling in Chess960 to people not familiar with Chess since the end result of castling is symmetrical. I'm curious what others think.
Hi Matthew, Chess960 preserves the genuine asymmetrie of Chess, thus its castling rules make sense, overmore thus becoming also a superset to traditional chess. But there is Chess480 with 'modern' castling (King makes two steps if possible). But Chess480 with 'symmetric' castling, as you proposed, is not yet a common variant. Nevertheless you could play all those three variants at the SMIRF chess engine and GUI. This is also true for the 10x8 board geometry. http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html
Pete wrote on Tue, Apr 18, 2006 03:57 AM UTC:I am glad to see a simpler presentation of the castling rules for Chess960. The length of the initial rules presentation I had seen was rather offputting, and what John has proposed is, in my opinion, a step in the right direction. My question involves other requirements for castling. In ordinary chess, there is the requirement (3.8.ii.2.b) that the squares between the king and the rook in question must be empty. This rule ensures, among other things, that both the king and the rook have open destination squares. I don't see such a requirement explicitly in John's post, and I suggest that this be added or, if the rule is not necessary, that an explanation of castling in a situation like BRKNNQ.. (with the spot the king would occupy after castling already being occupied by another piece) be provided. Pete
rknnbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RKNNBQRB w KQkq - 0 1
I picked this from random selection. (Position #747)
In Chess960, you need at least five moves to castle to the right from this position:
rknnbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/3NNPB1/PPPPPQPP/RK4RB w KQkq - 0 1
The resulting castle would have the King move 5 spaces and the rook 2. I suppose that's okay. I see Kings make these kinds of moves all the time...wait I mean I see Rooks make these kinds of moves all the time. That's odd. Kings shouldn't be moving so far should they?
Rooks are meant to slide long distances. It's what they do. In Standard Chess Castling provides a unique extra move for the King. In Chess960 that extra movement can result in remarkable rearrangement of pieces, and rather than looking like the King is jumping over a Rook which just made a 'normal' move next to it, it looks like the Rook is jumping out of the way of a speeding King.
rknnbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/3NNPB1/PPPPPQPP/R4RKB w kq - 0 1
Ok, so what if you happen to be castling the other direction?
rknnbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/3NN3/PPPPPPPP/RK2BQRB w KQkq - 0 1
In this case you only need to move two pieces to give you the space to castle. But what's this? The King moves one space to his right and the Rook jumps three spaces. Why in the world would a rook be jumping three spaces? And why is the King moving right to castle left??
rknnbqrb/pppppppp/8/8/8/3NN3/PPPPPPPP/2KRBQRB w kq - 0 1
Granted, castling is the only time you can move two pieces simultaneously, so it kind of odd anyway, but all this Rook jumping business is very strange! In Standard Chess the only pieces that can jump are Knights and Kings... and Kings only get to do it on their first move as part of a castle.
It really seems more like these pieces aren't Castling so much as teleporting to pre-defined spaces. Which, of course, is exactly what they are doing.
In a bid to keep the game backwards compatible with Standard Chess, castling was restricted to the castling squares found in that game. It wasn't the only way to keep the game backwards compatible, but it was the one chosen by Bobby Fischer.
It also had the effect of putting the Castled pieces in familiar places to Standard Chess players. On the surface this might seem like a very good thing. Standard Chess players would be familiar with how such positions are defended and how to attack them. But I think this is counter to Bobby's own intentions. He was looking for something unfamiliar. Something where you're previous (extensive) knowledge of Standard Chess wouldn't give you an advantage. A game to put those who haven't studied endlessly in books a better chance of playing tactically with those that have.
So much for that, I guess.
In the end, a game can only be as good as it's rules.
But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess. It looks promising, but I don't don't know whether it speaks to the instincts of chess players. Nor do I know if it's complex enough, i.e., so that a multitude of deep strategies are possible.
Chess commentators have been ridiculing Capablanca for his big board proposal, and even argued that it was an expression of megalomania. But Capa was right. It's only that his proposal came too early, prior to 20th century's immense development in opening play. But now chess is approaching a crisis again. The big board alternative is underestimated because people think that its complexity is beyond human capability. I think this is a misunderstanding. This form of complexity is something which a human brain is very apt to handle. In regular chess a 'simple' rook ending could be immensely complicated, putting great demands on both understanding and calculus, whereas a complex middle game position could be much more easy to handle. This is a paradox in chess. In complicated positions with many pieces the vast majority of continuations are simply impracticable. A rook ending contain much fewer possibilities, but a much greater percentage of practicable continuations. In middle games there are many uncritical positions, which means that there are many playable alternatives. You could almost choose a move by random. This paradox, that it is often easier to play complex positions, makes the big board alternatives wholly playable, at least some of them. To many orthodox chessplayers such a game as Renniassance Chess, for instance, is unthinkable. It must be a joke. Nobody can control the complexity of this game. But thanks to this paradox of complex positions certain big board variants are probably quite manageable.
I don't think it's worth it to waste more time and energy on Fischer Random, as such. A better alternative is simply to pick good and interesting positions from the array of positions in FR and adopt them as new additional opening setups, like I did in my own proposal Chess-B. To chessplayers, this is much more fun , because then one can study and discuss this particular FR position.
Mats
In his upcoming series Kasparov will discuss the 'opening revolution', which had its beginnings in the seventies. For the ambitious amateur, the present development in chess, the advanced level of opening science, is injurious to creativity and phantasy. In Rubinstein's and Lasker's time grandmasters could still play the exchange variation in the French with a good deal of success. But what's the point in feeding 25 moves in the Sicilian Dragon, against another ambitious amateur, and then shake hands since a theoretical drawn position is reached? I see amateurs do this. In orthodox chess you are cooped up in opening lines which you don't really like. You are forced to play against your own nature because there are no good strategical alternatives. Everything else is drawish. This is due to the advancement of opening science. I don't think Fide-chess should vanish, it's just that it's high time that we think about alternatives.
That's why I think that such initiatives like the Circular Chess World Championship are praiseworthy, because it speaks to our phantasy and creativity.
Mats
'But clearly, Fide chess is approaching a crisis. It could soon be renamed 'Opening Study Chess'. It's becoming ridiculous. I think there are two ways of meeting this challenge. (1) Follow Capablanca's proposal and increase the board size, or (2) introduce a form of drop-chess along Burmesian lines, as my own proposal Swedish Chess.' I think there is an option (3), or at least (2b), which is what I've called 'Mercenary Chess'. Let us start a world CV organization that maintains a catalog of pieces, perhaps a bit less inclusive than the Piececlopedia, but with a price for each piece, measured in points. (The organization should have some system for monitoring the empirical value of different pieces based on their observed usefulness in tournament play, and adjusting prices periodically based on what they learn.) Each player starts with 1000 points, or perhaps it should be 100 points per file on the rectangular board chosen, and the players start the game by alternately purchasing their starting pieces and dropping them on the board. Such a system would be amenable to handicapping, by giving one player a few more points than the other. Equal players might decide to give Black a few more points to compensate for moving second. This idea has been proposed in various forms by several people. I think I heard that Bob Betza was first, calling an idea very much like this one 'Generalized Chess.'
Certainly this article only attempts to remedy the flaws in FRC... and does not propose to solve all the problems in standard 'Book Opening Chess'. The idea of creating a game where you may buy your pieces from a selection of pieces is very appealing to many and deserves it's own article. I have for a long time studied the problem of allowing people to buy their armies in Chess and I have various opinions I've come to based on experimentation and dialogue with players. Two things is certain: 1. Chess Master/Grand Masters will never accept a new game that takes away their book opening knowledge advantage. Particularly if played professionally. 2. Chess960/FRC is a fine game, but improvements in it will not be accepted by it's participants any more than standard chess Grand Masters.
'Chess Master/Grand Masters will never accept a new game that takes away their book opening knowledge advantage.' No, I wouldn't expect them to; they have too much invested in their study of openings. But if I'm optimistic about the future of Chesslike games, it's from hoping that the next generation, who haven't become Chess experts, might be attracted to CV's.
Another candidate with a potential for superseding Fide-chess is the type of CV:s that employ undefined or potential pieces, such as Bario, and my own variant Barion. I have improved the rules for Barion greatly and uploaded a new version today.
Potential pieces, or 'Quantums', or whatever you prefer to call them, is an area that could be researched more.
Mats
Mats, you overlooked the games I mentioned and brought up backgammon, not sure why. But I did mention Omega Chess. GM Michael Rohde (about 2695 rated)in regard to Omega Chess excitedly stated '. . . all the elements of chess are preserved' and he stated that'. . .new tactical twists are created by the extra pieces, larger board and extra corner squares.' He went on to say, 'The Wizard and the Champion complement very well and quite entertainingly the different strengths of the Knight, Bishop, Rook and Queen.' He pointed out that Omega Chess groups have shown up in Toronto, New York, Budapest, and on the internet. Susan Polgar (a high level chess master) also likes Omega Chess. Former World Chess Champion Kramnik played Makruk (Thailand Chess). He played a match of Makruk against German journalist Dr. René Gralla (May 1st, 2004). Kramnik likes Makruk. But for now, there is really no reason to replace chess. It is an excellent game... there is no reason we can't continue to play and enjoy chess along with other games like Shogi, Xianqi, and many of our little-known inventions here. Players will play what they like.... in time something may come along to replace chess... but I think we'll both be pushing up daisies long before that happens.
So how about Omega Chess? My first reaction is that it's somewhat slow. (But perhaps that good?) Secondly, there are four light piece-types (bishop, knight, champion, wizard) that have the same value and are worth less than the rook. How does this affect play? Won't the game be centered around these pieces, that is, won't the majority of the moves be made by those pieces?
Playing against the zrf I see that the engine hops around with these pieces, avoiding moving the pawns. Is there any idea to expand one's territory by advancing the pawns, or could one just as well go on hopping with the light pieces? Does anyone have any experience of this game? I don't trust grandmaster opinions, because they think that backgammon is a good game, despite the fact that it's immensely boring.
Mats: You wrote, in part 'Truth is that hardly anybody knows what Omega Chess is.' Response: Okay. I can help remedy that. Those who want to read more about it can go to this informative site: www.omegachess.com Mats also wrote, in part: 'And this is what we are trying to remedy here by discussing which type of chess variant could appeal to the average player.' Response: Chess already appeals to the average player. Mats wrote: 'Fide-chess is approaching a crisis. The game is becoming too well-researched.' Response: I disagree. Sure, if we take the sum of man's knowledge it is well researched. But when we play the great game of chess we are dealing with a single human mind. It cannot possibly retain all that well-researched material. One player may know the Halloween Gambit... it is likely that most players will not. Even when someone plays a Sicilian Defense... will the Smith-Morra Gambit take him by surprize? What about the Grand-Prix Attack? Because we have human mind vs. human mind, chess is very exciting. Strategic and Tactical abilities outweight opening knowledge. Opening knowledge won't help you in an endgame. It won't help you find a clever mate-in-three. There are over a billion possible positions after just the first few moves in a game of chess... it is hardly played out. I've been reading some long lost chess documentation from the year 1590... guess what, it is exciting stuff that can be used again today over 400 years later. People that want to play something besides chess can. I see no need to cure the non-existent illness. Mats wrote: In my country 50% of the players have been lost in 20 years, for a number of reasons. And they don't turn to Makruk or Omega Chess. My response: That is their perogative. If they want to abandon chess, fine by me. But I'll keep playing it, and Shogi, and Xianqi, and Navia Dratp, and Kamikaze Mortal Shogi, etc. I don't need the rest of the world to join in. Just one opponent per game is fine.
Evidently, a grandmaster will like the game because he can master the complicated tactics. But an amateur would like to be able to survive the middlegame. I contend that the next evolution in chess must be a variant with a better balance between strategy and tactics.
I think this discussion could bring us somewhere as long as we tolerate each other's views.
So, what were we to think when Kramnik played the 'dead' Berlin Defense against Garry Kasparov's Ruy Lopez, and won? You have convinced me of nothing really, other than you seem to dislike backgammon and want to say goodbye to chess... which is fine. Just play the games you want. And us non-masters (and World Champions like Kramnik) can continue to play 'dead' openings. P.S. Funny that my use of a 'Dead' Grand Prix attack got me a draw with a Master last fall (in an over-the-board tournament).
Facts are that many chess commentators became worried during the Kramnik-Kasparov match. With the Berlin defense, they saw a return to drawish chess, and to openings that were certain draws, especially with the aid of modern databases. I haven't declared chess dead. I'm just saying that it's approaching a crisis.
Mats: You wrote: 'An average player can study the Berlin defense and become practically invincible.' If there was such a thing as stand-up comedy for chess, that would be a great line. It certainly is not even the least bit true. Such a premise is non-sense. If it were true we'd be seeing plenty of Berlin Chess Defenses being played. But we are not seeing that. And, even if it was true White could play a first move of one of these: f4, c4, d4, Nf3, or Nc3.... and then the Berlin cannot even be played. So, what keeps black 'practically invincible' in these instances? You seem to overlook that there is more to chess than understanding an opening. Tactics and Strategy are crucial. Can you solve mate-in-3 and mate-in-4 problems rapidly in your mind? I doubt it. And knowing the Berlin Opening (or another opening) well will not help you to these ends. I look forward to seeing your games published in Chess Life where you can demonstrate that you are nearly invincible with the black pieces.
So I don't claim it's the 'Perfect chess variant'. That was a slogan I invented beside the link to the article about it. Everybody knows what a commercial slogan is and people don't take them seriously. And I do certainly have the right to claim that Backgammon is boring.
I think the last comments are a depressing sight. They are evidence of a lack of intelligence. When I make a joke and say that nobody has the right to use my newly invented piece, and that legal measures will be taken, and put the smiley beside ;-) then I get scolded for that, too.
Why don't you guys try to understand what people are saying before starting to scold them. Soon everybody is going to be pissed in this place.
(I used the name Z-pente because I was worried that the name Pente was a trademark, that's all. I immediately make clear on my homepage that 'this is the same as Pente'. But please forget about my non-chess variants. But thanks anyway for your comments on my games.)
I find it fascinating that this discussion started from an article promoting a different castling system for Chess960/FRC. Granted, most of this can be considered on topic because of Fischers own statement 'It's a great game, and can become the standard for chess.' Hubris? Perhaps. Personally I enjoy games with limited knowledge but non-random. For exmaple Sun Tzu Chess uses the Chess960 set-up but plays like Dark Chess. You can only see the board where you can move. This feels more like war to me than regular chess. You have no idea where the enemy is until you probe for them. Having said that, I know that not everyone will like a game like that. Most good chess players are good because they can examine the whole board and make the right move with full knowledge of all the positions. I can't. That's why I'm rated much higher in Sun Tzu than in Standard Chess. I'm even rated MUCH higher in chess variants with randomness as part of moves because I'm very good at dealing with odds and managing risk. So I'm Master level at Stanley Random Chess, where the computer makes 50% of the moves for you randomly. There is no ultimate chess save for the current version. Our beloved Standard Chess has not had a very long life in it's current form and is still a mostly Western game. China, Japan, and Korea all have their own version that are just as deep and interesting. Conclusion, I think this debate is interesting and I hope for most posts, but I find the winding trail from the original subject curious.
The Chess 480 castling rules are based on some false assumptions. The original purpose of castling is not to just move the king two squares to the right, or three squares to the left and connect the rooks. The impetus for castling is to secure saftey of your king, and allow you to carry out other operations on the board with (hopefully) a safe king position (and connect the rooks too, yes). The most important point is that we are removing the king from the centre of the board by castling. In Chess 960 we are always able to vacate from the centre to either wing, Chess 480 however, does not always allow this. Rather than Chess 960 castling being arbitrary, it is the 480 castling rules that are arbitrary and do not apply well to the logic of a chess game.
'Castling This is a move of the King and either Rook of the same colour on the same rank, counting as a single move of the King and executed as follows: the King is transferred from its original square two squares towards the Rook, then that Rook is transferred to the square the King has just crossed.'
Yes that is true, but it only applies to the case where the king is starting on e1 (ie regular chess). Let's take an example position of king starting on g1. In Chess 960 we have the option of castling 'h' side (staying on that flank) or 'a' side, finding safety on that side of the board. We can have opposite castling games, same side castling, or no castling if it is appropriate, just like normal chess. In Chess 480 we find ourselves with the grim options of either castling 'h' side, or castling directly onto the e file! I hope you can see how undesirable this could be when many chess games revolve around control of the centre by pawn occupation, thus the e file could be likely be opened. It is not a sensible or safe castling destination!
'It seems that simplification of the castling rules for Chess960 could help promote the game for beginners, streamline the rules and reconnect the game with it's historical roots.'
Creating a variant where players castle into the often volatile centre of the board does not reconnect the game with its roots, it strays. The Chess 480 castling rules appear to break the true intention of castling. If 960 castling is to be explained to a beginner, it is easy to say you always castle to either g1 or c1. Why these squares they ask? The centre of the board is often unsafe.
As a user noted, and is stated in many BEGINNER chess books: Castling is a special move undertaken by both the rook and king, the sole purpose of being able to meet the following: Tuck the king away in a corner (either kingside or queenside) so that it is AWAY from the center and (in most cases) safe from hostile activity. Centralize the rooks so that they can be brought to action along the center files d1 (d8) and f1 (f8).
Fischer's castling rules satisfy the above requirements, while the proposed suggestion is completely illogical and should be discarded.
Many people seem to have a problem with Castling and stalemate rules. Think of castling as moving the king to a special bunker to hide from attack and think of stalemate as the king committing suicide so that your opponent cannot claim to have killed it (which is the objective of the game - to kill the king).
If Castling is about moving the King to safety then I challenge that Chess960 is much less helpful in this regard because of the cases where the King is already in the spot it would move to.
In these same situations, using Orthodoxed Castling, the King would indeed move to a safer position two spaces away regardless of his starting position.
This is not a problem: >>there are numerous positions in Chess960 where the King does not move at all if he Castles. >>
The original intent of castling was to move the king to either wing, centralize the rook and connect the 2 rooks.
It was ASSUMED that one of the wings was safer. This is not necessarily the case. Think of it as two bunkers located at opposite wings.
IN chess960, the king may already be in the wing bunker, but the rook alone needs to jump over to be centralized. Also if this wing is under attack the king can castle to the opposite wing.
So there is no issue if the king does not move at all.
The 'king moves two space' rule is for beginners who don't understand chess very well, and catering for them is ridiculous.
Castling in normal chess is only logical when visualized this way, not as a special 'king two space move' rule, which is what you are confusing castling to be.
For white a-side bunker is on your left with king on c1 R on d1 and h-side bunker on right with king on g1 and R on f1. In orthodox chess, this Castling move (to the bunker) can be made by moving king 2 spaces etc. But in Fischer Random, the moves are just different depending on the position.
Isn't that quite logical. If I as King am already in the bunker or quite close, I don't have to move very far, but my rook has to move over to center. Note, that it is assumed in Chess that the bunkers are in the wings. Otherwise, why can't the king just jump anywhere where it may be 'safe'?
Fischer was no dummy when he invented this variant. The castling rule is what makes this Fischer Random variant unique.
Otherwise you have shuffle chess and NO CASTLING!
You clearly don't have a grasp of the history of castling and are confusing what modern strategy guides explain as the advantages of castling as opposed to the reasons for castling.
You assume that the original inventors of castling had the intention you mention but didn't both to read the article(s) I linked to which explained how castling evolved.
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. You have to admit that is true. In Orthodoxed Castling there is at least a reasonable and tactical use for Castling to extract a king from a dangerous situation.
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, and take up almost half of his explanation of his variant. No, I think Fischer just dropped the ball on this one.
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.
To those, who intend to change Chess960 via its castling rules: Please, leave Chess960 as it is. If you are convinced to have a better idea for to improve 8x8 Chess, then please do not hesitate to suggest an own variant, good luck! P.S.: Hi Echelon: I am not a member of HISBOLLAH or AL KAIDA, having no contact to BIN LADEN, also do not support any other TERROR organization and do not PLAN to ATTACK or DESTROY US American SKYSCRAPERS or BRIDGES using EXPLOSIVE materials like fluid BLASTING AGENTS or to place SEMTEC BOMBS into AIRPLANES to strike US FLIGHTS or to weaken US TROOPS e.g. by committing ANTHRAX ASSAULTS using TELECOMMANDED model AIRCRAFTS.
Hi Reinhard, This document lead to the creation of Chess480 which uses castling as described here. I still think FRC/Chess960 would be better with the castling system as I've described, but the former has a lot of momentum and that means it's unlikely to change (as I stated in the final section). C: If you like to take up the challenge, find a chess player who hasn't seen Chess960 and see what they think the most logical castling system is. Don't prompt them, just ask how they would do it.
P.S.: Hi Echelon: I am not a member of HISBOLLAH or AL KAIDA, having no contact to BIN LADEN, also do not support any other TERROR organization and do not PLAN to ATTACK or DESTROY US American SKYSCRAPERS or BRIDGES using EXPLOSIVE materials like fluid BLASTING AGENTS or to place SEMTEC BOMBS into AIRPLANES to strike US FLIGHTS or to weaken US TROOPS e.g. by committing ANTHRAX ASSAULTS using TELE-COMMANDED model AIRCRAFTS.
Thanks Reinhard, but your ignorance is showing. The original proposal was for Chess960 to be reinterpreted from FRC with these more logical rules, hence this document resides here. After long debate with various and equally venomous Chess960 supporters I simply created another variant using the better rules. No, I'm not a Grand Master so my variant will never have the fame of Fischer Random Chess, but I am sure that my variants are better than anything he could create. Chess480 can be enjoyed online at www.SchemingMind.com (a site I think you left because of your caustic reactionary statement?) But you are right, why don't you continue this discussion somewhere else.
It would be counter productive, if friends of the traditional 8x8 Chess variant would be hanging bad words on FRC using the fora of its scene, just as if Chess960 enthusiasts would be trying to convert traditionalists to their favorite by polluting their communication channels to overwhelm that people by pro random arguments.
I have commented Chess480 and its castling at several places. Thus I do not see a need to repeat myself again - moreover at a wrong place.
P.S.: Hi Echelon: I am not a member of HISBOLLAH or AL KAIDA, having no contact to BIN LADEN, also do not support any other TERROR organization and do not PLAN to ATTACK or DESTROY US American SKYSCRAPERS or BRIDGES using EXPLOSIVE materials like fluid BLASTING AGENTS or to place SEMTEC BOMBS into AIRPLANES to strike US FLIGHTS or to weaken US TROOPS e.g. by committing ANTHRAX ASSAULTS using TELE-COMMANDED model AIRCRAFTS.
Reinhard Scharnagl- Thank you for staying in communication with us via a public forum. Please remember that Americans need your knowledge and expert opinions on chess variants and chess AI programming as much as the rest of the world. I sincerely hope I will always be able to communicate with you in this manner. By the way, your bizarre postscript at the end of EVERY message to this American-hosted web site is a hilarious piece of satire. I love it! Take care.
El Americano wrote on Thu, Jan 31, 2008 09:09 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★It's too bad that the existing rule cannot be changed (improved). Teleporting to the traditional castling position has always seemed to me to be at odds with the intent to move away from the traditional positions. Moreover, doesn't the weaker queen-side castle in the classic game show that the King can't just leap to b1 from e1, but is limited to two-squares? The possible b1 to g1 leap just seems utterly ridiculous to me. I love the variant, but I think Fischer made the wrong call - maybe he hadn't thought of this possibility when he announced it.
One must understand what happens when: - rook and king are adjacent = the Rook stays where it was. - rook and king are adjacent with rook in the corner = permute them. note that rook and king adjacent with king in the corner is not a valid array, since a valid array implies King between rooks
52 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.