Comments by JohnLewis

Sorry Greg, but that is only one of *several* numbering systems I've seen.
 What I said was that there was no *standard* number system I was aware
of.

To show a mirror position in order to explain why there are technically
only 480 positions if Orthodox Castling is used.

The term 'Chess960' was invent by Hans-Walter Schmitt (chairman of the
Frankfurt Chess Tigers e.V.) after debate over a new name that did not
include Bobby Fischer's name.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wonder if I can come up with a puzzle where there's a two move stalemate where only a knight or bishop (or rook!?!) would prevent the stalemate.

In any case I will wait and see.  I do like that name so if you aren't going to use it, I have dibs. ;P

It's also easy to explain away these pawn rules and have a simple system in play. You can always complicate the game later. I think most young players are taught as I was, without en-passant and without castling rules. These were taught later, as they were unnecessary complications that weren't required for those early games.

By removing these rules streamlines the rules without really taking away anything important to the game.

Double Moves were added to the game to make it faster: This is addressed with less squares. Essentially you are moving two spaces from the start.

The En-Passant was added because of the Double Move rule creating an unfair way to bypassing an advanced pawn: This is addressed by removing this rule and the Double moves.

The promotion rules are directly in place for face to face games. There is no need for extra pieces or proxy pieces in this variant. How many times have you used a salt shaker for a Queen?

King Capture make the game very simple because it removes cumbersome rules about 'stale mate'. Kings are free to move into any square, including those that are threatened. This means even a King on King game can be completed with a win for one side as long as you remember to call repetition of board. I wish there was an easier way to deal with limited numbers of pieces, but I haven't found a way. Ideally I would like to get rid of the three move repetition. I'm open to other option.

If you study the historical reasons for these burdensome rules, you find that they were added over time to address specific issues. These issues are all addressed in this simplified version.

Example Game:

1. e2-e3 d6-d5
2. d2-d3 e6-e5
3. Nb1-c3 Ng7-f5
4. f2-f3 Bc7-d6
5. e3-e4 Bd6-b4
6. e4xf5 g6xf5
7. a2-a3 Bb4xc3
8. b2xc3 f5-f4
9. d3-d4 Qd7-e6
10. Ng1-e2 Nb7-d6
11. a3-a4 Bf7-g6
12. Ra1-b1 b6-b5
13. Bc1-a3 Ke7-d7
14. Ba3-c5 Ra7-b7
15. a4xb5 Rb7-b5
16. Rb1xb5? c6xb5
17. Qd1-a1 Nd6-c4
18. Ne2-c1 Nc4-e3
19. Bf1xb5! a6xc5
20. Qa1-a7 Kd7-c6
21. Qa7-b6 Kc6-d7
22. Qb6-a5 Ne3xc2
23. Ke1-d2 e5xe4
24. Nc1-e2 Qe6-e3
25. Kd2-d1 Qe3-d3
26. Kd1-c1 Nc2-b4
27. Qa5-a7 Kd7-e6
28. Qa7-b6 Ke6-f5
29. Ne2xd4 Kf5-g5
30. Nd4-e6 
black resigns

I'll reiterate my point that this variant is specifically designed to be played with a standard FIDE set.  That means 32 pieces and no salt shakers.

There is also an element of strategy added by having promotions only allowed for captured pieces.

Enjoy the new dynamic for what it is.

And most importantly PLAY!  Try a game.  I really would prefer hearing informed comments from people that have tried the game.  Talk about the cramped feeling of the board.  Talk about the oddity of a middle square and how it affects pawn formations.

Theoretical discussion are great but I want to hear about people playing.

David Paulowich,

I've taken on what you've said and added the addendum that if a side can't legally move that they lose.

I very much appreciate your interest in this variant and your continue detailed review.

Please note that Rich is working on various other version of Simplified Chess that I am not involved with.  He liked the idea and ran with it.  My goals are and continue to be to create a set of rules for chess that are as simple as possible while retaining the basic feeling of chess.

I know that pieces, as you've shown, can become blockaded, but this position is almost a position that requires the player blockaded to purposely place his pieces in this manner.  It's so rare and extremely unlikely that I doubt it's come up in 99.9% of games.

However you are right that games should not have leaks and holes in them.  In attempting to simplify, there was his gap.

If you see more problems please post them.

Also, I would VERY much like to see a game report from you.