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 ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2005-09-18
 By John Kipling Lewis. Castling in Chess 960. New castling rules for Fischer Random Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
albert wrote on 2009-09-23 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
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

Aronymous wrote on 2008-02-05 UTC
This can be argued. Chess 480 Castling rules sometime throw the King in the Center of the board. The only (arguably better) alternative I can think of is castling to b-file or g-file (unlike c-file or g-file used in FischerRandom), but this remains unnamed though, and is not intuitive.

Sam Trenholme wrote on 2008-02-04 UTC
There is a version with better castling called 'Chess 480'.

El Americano wrote on 2008-01-31 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
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.

Anonymous wrote on 2008-01-21 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

Mark Thompson wrote on 2007-08-09 UTC
I'm sure it will get funnier with each passing month, too. Keep it up, it's very revealing.

Derek Nalls wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
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.

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
Well John, it is not a case of ignorance, but a case of construction or destruction. You are trying to destruct the idea of a working variant, maybe by reasons, you might be convinced of. Nevertheless it in contrast would be a more constructive task to embed your arguments into an independent context.

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.

John Lewis wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
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.

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
The challenge already has been decided. Chess480 seems to be so uninteresting to the most logically thinking people, that you seem to see a need to move that strange discussion to the Chess960 variant page, where it is in fact absolutely misplaced. Simply try to continue that discussion on a more appropriate place and analyse the echo, which might be raised there.

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.

John Lewis wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
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.

Reinhard Scharnagl wrote on 2007-08-08 UTC
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.

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.

John Lewis wrote on 2007-08-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The original intent of castling was to move the king to either wing, centralize the rook and connect the 2 rooks.

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.

Charles wrote on 2007-08-08 UTCPoor ★

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!


John Lewis wrote on 2007-08-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Both the previous poster claim that the use for Castling is to move the King from the center of the board to safety in the corner but both give extremely ignorant reasoning when there are numerous positions in Chess960 where the King does not move at all if he Castles.

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.

Carlos wrote on 2007-08-07 UTCPoor ★

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).


Dave wrote on 2007-01-24 UTCAverage ★★★

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.


M Winther wrote on 2006-04-22 UTC
Michael, obviously you don't understand how impertinent you are, thinking that you are the right person to stand in judgement about me and my conduct. You make a lot of insinuations about me and my contributions, and you say, 'Be careful how you say things, and be careful that you have evidence for your statements.' How can you make such statements? Who do you think you are? Nor can I understand how you can build a judgement of so many of my games in so short time. It appears superhuman. It would probably take a months time to arrive at a good judgement on Mastodon Chess.

John Lewis wrote on 2006-04-22 UTC
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.

M Winther wrote on 2006-04-22 UTC
What I say about my 'Swedish Chess' is this (2006-04-19) 'It looks promising, but I 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.'

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.)

Gary Gifford wrote on 2006-04-22 UTC
Mats: I shall offer no more comments regarding your issues with chess. But I will conclude with these observations: I find many of your statements to be misleading and some simply not true. And to me, it seems that many of your statements contradict other statements of yours. But no need for me to point these out, afterall, you state that I am a 'nitpicker.' However, the contradictions are easy enough to find, should anyone want to look for them. So, I shall now bow out of this debate and allow you to remain in the ring, so to speak. Best regards, Gary

M Winther wrote on 2006-04-22 UTC
Gary, you are a nitpicker of indistinctness in expressions, and I cannot relate to your irritation. No, on amateur level we would not see a lot of Berlin defense played because it tends to result in draws. Strong players want to be able to win against weaker players, so they play the Sicilian. How could a practically invincible Berlin defense be so damaging on grandmaster level? It's because 50% of the games are opened with 1.e4. It is the best move. Earlier, when theory was not so well developed, we had no way of knowing this. You are curious about my style? Some of my own games are published in ChessBase's collections.

Gary Gifford wrote on 2006-04-21 UTC
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.

M Winther wrote on 2006-04-21 UTC
Gary, the Berlin defense has never been declared dead. The only problem is that it's designed to achieve a draw, which was what Kramnik achieved. But black-players often want to play for a win. That's why Berlin was almost forgotten. If it's true that Berlin is such a good defense, then this is a fine example of how far chess science has advanced. An average player can study the Berlin defense and become practically invincible. Certainly, this is not good for chess.

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.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.