|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 52 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-27-05 | | JustAFish: Has anyone actually sat down and played around with some of the positions? I would be curious to know whether any of the positions seem to come out with a clear-cut advantage for one side. |
|
| Mar-27-05 | | Jamespawn: I read an interview with Anand and in it he said that with some set ups of FRC it is impossible for Black to win. Does anyone know if this is true and if so which set up? |
|
| Mar-27-05 | | WMD: First it has to be established that Anand said anything of the sort. |
|
Mar-27-05
 | | Ron: <JustAFish> This is my experience with Fisher Random chess: a couple of games against a weak program that is on the Internet, and, a consultation game with friends (2 players versus 2 players) at a local coffehouse.
It seems to me that as long as one side's pieces are set up the same way as the other side, there is no clear-cut advantage.
Seems that Anand differs. Well, I'm no Anand. But I would be interested in seeing the counter-example.
A thought: perhaps have a chess program play against itself in Fischer Random chess; start with different initial positions and have numerous games played. |
|
| Mar-27-05 | | Jamespawn: WMD: I read the interview on Chessbase. Of course now they`re running a story about a secret game between Fischer and Karpov played in the 70`s so who knows? |
|
Mar-27-05
 | | BishopBerkeley: On the subject of poor balance between White and Black in some opening setups of Shuffle Chess or FRC, this is hardly a rigorous observation, but here goes: what one immediately notices in Shuffle Chess is that, from some starting positions, the movement of a Pawn will open up an immediate diagonal attack against an unprotected Pawn of ones opponent. And of course, this often results in a very small number of good defensive responses from ones opponent to these Bishop or Queen threats originating from a1, b1, g1, or h1. In short, one gets the feeling that the "battle is joined" very quickly indeed from some Shuffle Chess setups, and that the range of solid responses narrows very quickly. (Of course, one can respond to such immediate aggression with equal and opposite aggression in many cases, but White's slight advantage is sometimes magnified with such responses, I think.) In Orthodox Chess, each Pawn begins its little life under some Piece's protection. Not so for some setups of Shuffle Chess! (: ♗B :) |
|
| Mar-27-05 | | tud: In a tournament, you can make it a round robin giving equal chances to both players, black and white. If they can do it for bridge, they can do it for fisherrandom chess. Morozevich, Anand, Kasparov and Topalov would be good contenders. Positions are wilder, let`s see some games and tournaments first. Let`s make Amber with a 3rd Fischerrandom option. |
|
| Mar-29-05 | | Franz the Stampede: <Did you all know that you can decide the starting position in Fischerandom using a die? Just thought I'd point it out.> r u patronising or what? °_°
<azaris> I loved the Fischerandom interview! :D :D :D |
|
| Mar-29-05 | | Kangaroo: Good practicum for students learning probability theory and permutations. Nothing in common with chess theory! |
|
| Apr-06-05 | | free4ever: Is there a list for all 960 position placement?(i mean the back rank) |
|
| Apr-06-05 | | peanut: This goes to show how bored Bobby Fischer is already with Chess. But, (Take note of the word but) The possibilities of Fischerandom chess are astounding. But i'll bet it would take quite awhile (say 10 years or faster with the aid of computers i can imagine) before GM's start inventing openings for this game. Heck, if the world took this seriously, it's every man for himself as to who invents the best openings for this game. Like Fischerandom Ruy, Sicilian, King's and Queen's Gambit, etc.. Maybe we would hear openings such as the "Pope's Gambit" or the "President's Defence" Or even the "Peanut's attack" hehehe... |
|
| Apr-07-05 | | RandomGuy: ADDITIONAL RULE AVAILABLE ONLY IN CHESS960 -- "First Move Fairness": After White makes his first ply (such as 1. e24), Black has the options of either (1) Replying as normal or (2) Undoing White's ply then being obliged to make Black's mirror version of that same first ply as Black's first move (in this case 1. *undone* e75), indeed of the new first move of the game. White then must reply normally and the game proceeds normally. This rule motivates White to make his first ply be one that gives Black and White exactly equal chances from that point, fairness! In chess1 (classical chess) this rule would be problemmatic because the one opening setup would lead to the same 1-2 first White ply, insufficient variation. But in chess960 that obviously is not a problem. Can anyone see a flaw in this idea, please tell what flaws you see. Thank you. |
|
| Apr-07-05 | | Stevens: <randomguy> for me this changes the game way too much. The main point of chess is that it is established that white has the first move, and therefore the initiative and a slight edge. Changing such a fundamental point would destroy the meaning of the game for me. Then again i'm not a big fan of shuffle chess in the first place. Rather than change an existing game why not just create a new one completely? Or why not just roll a dice which will determine which piece you have to move? Or how many pawns each person should start with? What i'm trying to say is that i love chess so much because there is no luck, there is no "chance". Everything that makes the game more random means i like it less. This is of course only my personal view. I'm not suggesting i'm right or wrong. |
|
| Apr-07-05 | | RisingChamp: No the only thing random here is random for both sides,and the symmetry is maintained.Secondly you are simply saying something incorrect when you say whites initiative and edge will be wiped out,after all he still has the first move in Fischerrandom and hence an edge(unless you claim that some position is zugzwang)only thing is since there is no theory,you cant rely on being safe just because you move first even if your opponent is stronger. |
|
| Apr-07-05 | | Stevens: <risingchamp> no, in the previous post <random> was saying a new rule could be that after white's first move, black could retract whites move and take his move on the condition that he played the exact move that white had done ( i think !?!) I realise that's the shuffle chess is random for both sides, but that's why i'm not sure about it! ;-) |
|
| Apr-08-05 | | peanut: Thanks for the random idea... :) |
|
Apr-08-05
 | | Gypsy: <all> I am picking up on the earlier conversation how to generate random starting positions without a help of an electronic device. While it is easy to toss a coin or die enough times to quickly generate uniformly distributed random varible within the prescribed range (say, 1-1000), a practical problem is to map this number onto starting positions. (Note, for instance, that in the cg gererator above the mapping appears haphazzard; and in fact cg has confirmed that such is the case.) I therefore want to suggest a couple of practical methods to generate the positions. The key to both is treating the staring positions as permutations. (1) Pick a deck of 8 cards (eg, 1-8 of a suit) and shuffle it. Place {♔,♕,♖,♖,♗,♗,♘,♘} on the files according to the random sequence of numbers. If the permutation is not kosher, it is easy to fix it by generating 2-cycles (random i and j get switched) until a kosher position arives. It speeds things up to have one member of the offensive group, {♗,♗} or {♔,♖,♖}, as i and any other file as j. (2) Simultaneously, player A sellects a piece while player B sellects the file number. Again, if the resulting position is not considered legal, player can analogously generate cycles (A sellects i, B sellects j) untill a legal starting position arives. This is a game-theoretic method of generating the starting positions and is of some strategic interest on its own. Note that this method requires no randomness generator at all, the random-like effect arises from the tension between the players and how they read each other. |
|
Apr-08-05
 | | nasmichael: <tud Mar 27 2005> Mainz has already had 2 Chess 960 tourneys with GMs and IMs participating. Read up at http://www.chesstigers.org/alte_dat... to see games with Svidler, Aronian, Grischuk, Hort, Cmilyte, Shirov, Morozevich, Rublevsky, and Almasi. Read the articles, see how past tournaments have proceeded. They even had a simul with Svidler and Aronian playing several boards. |
|
Apr-08-05
| | nasmichael: Hey, <Free4Ever Apr 06 2005>Here is a link to see all 960 positions: http://www.e4ec.org/variants.html
...The links will give a picture of each backfile setup. |
|
Apr-08-05
| | Gypsy: It would be great to get FR castling rules grafted onto the current game-players sometime soon so we could have our own <chesgames.com> collection going! |
|
| Apr-29-05 | | alannah233: can someone play me?
|
|
| Apr-29-05 | | Chris00nj: Imagine if you sat down for a game of random, and the starting position happened to be the normal starting position for a regular game. |
|
| May-05-05 | | Akavall: I wonder if just say Svidler (WC in random chess) played against Fritz, for example, who would be the favourite? My immediate thought that Fritz would be, but then again he doesn't get his extensive opening theory, and his team can't or it would be really hard for them to set him up to play *against Svidler*, the positions he doesn't like. And Svidler's better positional understanding might be a crucial factor. What do you guys think? |
|
| May-05-05 | | AdrianP: Svidler, definitely.
Without an opening book, computers have little idea where to put their pieces. The starting position may be unfamiliar to Svidler, but he would form some idea of a good set-up. |
|
| May-05-05 | | Akavall: But still, Svidler wouldn't be that familiar with the position and he could make a tactical mistake somewhere. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 25 OF 52 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
