The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search

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

Rated Comments for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2004-12-08
 By GM Gregory  Topov. Stanley Random Chess This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2004-12-08
 By GM Gregory  Topov.. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2015-12-24 UTCGood ★★★★
Stanley Random was first to use "Simpleminded Chess" to describe their stubborn little f.i.d.e. form that will probably stupidly outlast another decade. The original Stanley Random on CVPage was December 2004. Because of some criticism and unclear Rules, the description by Topov is dispersed and not completely in this article, apparently some of it edited by Topov, because for one thing originally there was mention of like 20,000 2 millenniums back origination in the first paragraph. Although it is not clear anyone knew exactly what was going on with Stanley Random: <a href="">One_of_Dozens</a>. See the other fifty comments.<p>Simpleminded? <a href="">Wit</a>. <a href="">Excess</a>. <p> <a href="">Gargantua</a> -- Rabelais in 1530s wrote excitedly of new mad Queen Chess, not as old as Stanley Random, still played today, and the image from the book represents Chess play. Rabelais' two chapters on a ball, a dance, for Chess, describing actual game moves of all the pieces, two of them brand new in Bishop and Queen, were longer at 12 pages or more even than individual Chess Morality poems of years 1200 to 1500 about the early Shatranj form. <a href="">Quotes</a>.

Charles Daniel wrote on 2008-04-12 UTCPoor ★
And I mean this is a poor joke at that! 
I don't think this should be at this site unless it is categorized as a joke and a poor one at that. 
This is like one of the numerous Wikipedia joke/bogus entries and far less   interesting to boot.

John Lewis wrote on 2005-10-20 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I think I can clear up the problems presented by those who are mystified by
the rules of Stanley Random Chess.  As the current American Grand Master, I
can assure you that even I find it hard to keep up with the volumes of
rules and stipulations that are involved.  In fact, I would suggest that
about 50% of the moves I make feel as if they were chosen at random from
all the possible moves available at that time.  It's only afterwards that
I'm able to determine the reason for my own errors, after looking up the
specifics of the situation in my leatherbound library.  (My personal
Achilles Heel are the moon phase transition instituted in Berlin, 1484.)

So while I often like to open with e4, about half the time my opening move
is substituted with the nearest legal ('random', to the layman) move from
all the available legal moves.  Again, I've never failed to be able to
find the rational for this transition upon review of the historical
journals.  I almost always find time to note these transitions to my
opponent, who sometimes finds such things humourous.  For example, when a
King joins inline with a row of pawns, this is known as 'Slumming'. 
When a Queen is prematurely brought into play she is often refered to as
'Dancing'.  The terminology is quiet liberating.

Should you have further questions, I'm sure playing a game would satisfy
your curiosity.  Feel free to challenge me on Scheming Minds.

Somebody wrote on 2005-10-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2004-12-08
 By GM Gregory  Topov. Stanley Random Chess This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2004-12-08
 By GM Gregory  Topov.. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Archr wrote on 2005-10-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I am agast at some of these comments. Really! Some of the commentors sound like shameless philosophers of the baser sort. Of course Stanley Random Chess exists! If you don't enjoy it, fine, but please don't resort to bald-faced lies (to adopt the terminology of one critic) regarding SRC. I just recently played my first correspondence game at I have not played an OTB game in many years. (In fact, I have not had an SRC library since the Great Des Moines Flood of 1993.) I thoroughly enjoyed the game. Fortunately for me, the game was not rated (I lost). I botched the complicated Butterfly Wing Gambit in the opening. In the middlegame, I simply couldn't gain much ground back. Much of my enjoyment stemmed, however, from seeing the masterful endgame play of my opponent. At one point, he sacked a rook to unstack my pawns and force my king onto a bad square. If that all sounds interesting, great! Play! If you are not interested, fine, don't play. And whether you play SRC or not, just remember: A bad day in chess better than a good day with a stomach flu. Archr aka ChessArchr

Max Maven wrote on 2005-10-18 UTCGood ★★★★
I don't see what the fuss about the legitimacy of Stanley Random Chess is all about. Clearly it is a chess variant that is currently playable at the correspondence chess server, there is an active player base, there are annotated games. So it's real. Sure, some of its history is clearly humorous and tongue-in-cheek, but since it is a real game that can genuinely be played online, and there are many people actively playing it, it belongs on this site.

The rules are honestly not that difficult to find out, and most players willing to take the time to play one or two games at will discover them quickly. Nobody should be allowed to question the authenticity and legitimacy of Stanley Random Chess without first trying the game online at

I have personally played several games, and can appreciate and understand the game's appeal! New players should not give up too quickly, and indeed the best way to learn the game is simply play one or two games with experienced players.

Joshua Morris wrote on 2005-10-05 UTCGood ★★★★
I find SRC amusing. The site contains pages of Chess history, fiction, and poetry - what's wrong with Chess humor? I don't think humor ought to be excluded just because some Chess players are humorless. :)

Daniel Roth wrote on 2005-09-27 UTCPoor ★
I looked at the mao game and I think that one will be easier to catch than
SRC. Just curious how will the cheating be prevented in such games.

I consider that SRC can not be learned by playing at all.
Else it needs some consistency which does not exist in SRC.
For example white moves 1st d2-d4 does not work every time. How will a SRC
grand master see that in advance? And playing of someone who knows all
rules against someone who does not is quite unfair. At least someone who
knows the rules should says this in advance of a game of SRC. Then the
player not knowing the rules can at least try to learn them.
And another thing is the complete lack of example SRC games.

Another thing is how the client works at
If a player makes a move, which is illegal in the case of the SRC rule
set, it makes a random move from all available legal moves.

Two players playing SRC who don't know the rules is very funny.

The other game (MC) is just a nonsense. How can someone keep a '125
volume' ruleset in the mind? And what is the playing material for that

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2005-09-27 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
ahhhhhhhhhaaaa lol!!
so, SRC is funny and on the level wow, didn't see that coming :)
only one thing to do now, give it an 'excellent' :)
god bless SRC, and please forgive all those doubters he he (*whistles*)
(oh btw, pretty cool idea about the rules being mysterious)

Derek Nalls wrote on 2005-09-27 UTCPoor ★
Pity to the poor soul who actually tries to play this game! Remove it.

Greg Strong wrote on 2005-09-26 UTCPoor ★
Many people have denied that this is a joke.  Several people have claimed
to be active players, and have further claimed that games and tournaments
of it have been played on various forums (such as Brainking.)  So I'm not
convinced that it is purely a joke (although much of the text is obviously
intended to be fictional and funny.)  But, despite the fact that we have
pages and pages of text describing this game, no rule set is actually

So, I think one of two things needs to happen.  If it is, in fact, a real
game, then the actual rules need to be posted here, in addition to all the
nonsense.  Or, these pages should be removed, as they have no place here. 

If it is a joke that the authors deliberately deny is a joke, for the
purpose of laughing at anyone who is fooled, than that is cruel and a
clear abuse of the webspace that the editors of this site generously
provide largely at their own expense.

Or, if it is not a joke, but the rules are 'top secret' then it should
also be removed.  The message 'I know something that you don't know, and
I'm not going to tell you' is also not an appropriate use of the bandwith
that is being paid for by others.

John Lewis wrote on 2005-09-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
As a Master level player of SRC, I can tell you that it is indeed as
demanding and tough as any variant you are likely to play.  As for the
amount of background material required to play at even a novice level, it
dwarfs Standard Chess and requires the assistance of computers for modern

As I mention this, the 37th Annual SchemindMind Tournament has just
opened, so if you are interested in observing, or taking part in some
games, now would be an excellant time to do so.

Larry Smith wrote on 2004-12-16 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I had previously given SR Chess this rating during an open forum discussion. Additionally, I am extending it to this page.

Anonymous wrote on 2004-12-15 UTCGood ★★★★
At the very least the rules are smaller than Stanley Taikyoku Shogessilockrothima from which Stanley Random Chess is decended from.

R. Maximus Toeffer wrote on 2004-12-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
As an avid SRC player on SchemingMind, I have found Topov's writings to be of immense value. This summary of the game is no exception. The game itself, with its colorful history and creative possibilities, has captured my imagination as no other variant has.

TwStein wrote on 2004-12-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Very interesting presentation of a previously little-known game. I can't help wondering if the author is an experienced player, possibly a master or grand master, of Mornington Crescent?

16 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.