Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The following e-mail was received by the editors: 

Great website! You write:
 

	'Fischer Random Chess has 960 legal arrays. This number is determined as
follows: 

	First, place the two Bishops. There are 16 different ways for one bishop
to be on a white square and the other Bishop to be on a black square. 

	That leaves six empty squares. Now, place the King somewhere between the
two Rooks. There are 20 different ways for a King and two Rooks to occupy
six squares with the King in between. 

	That leaves three squares for the two Knights and the Queen. There are
three possible ways to place these pieces. 

	Thus, there are 16 x 20 x 3 (960) legal arrays in Fischer Random
Chess.'

	 

	The most complex step is that 20 in the middle. It can be removed like
this:

		Fischer Random Chess has 960 legal arrays. This number is determined as
follows: 

		First, place the two Bishops. There are 16 (4 x 4) different ways for
one bishop to be on a white square and the other Bishop to be on a black
square. 

		That leaves six empty squares. Now, place the Queen. There are 6
different ways to do this. 

		That leaves five empty squares. Now, place the two Knights. There are 10
different ways to do this. 

		That leaves three empty squares. Lastly, place the two Rooks and the
King. There is only one legal way to do this. 

		Thus, there are 16 x 6 x 10 x 1 (960) legal arrays in Fischer Random
Chess. 

		Regards 

		Peter Ridges

I have expanded Fischer's mathematics system to cater for Capablanca's
chess variations.

Capablanca84000 is a variant of Fischer Random Chess (Chess960), based
on the Capablanca (10x8) variation.
The light (for white. dark squared for black) squared bishop may start
on one of 5 files (b,d,f,h,j). the dark (light for black) squared
bishop may similarly begin on one of 5 files (a,c,e,g,i).
The archbishop may then be placed on any of the remaining 8 files.
The chancellor may then be placed on any of the remaining 7 files.
The queen may then be placed on any of the remaining 6 files.
The two knights may be placed within the remaining 5 files in 10 ways:
1+2, 1+3, 1+4, 1+5, 2+3, 2+4, 2+5, 3+4, 3+5, 4+5.
The remaining 3 files are filled in the order of rook-king-rook to
allow for castling on both sides of the king.
Multiplying the quotients gives the number of combinations: 5 x 5 x 8
x 7 x 6 x 10 = 84,000

By taking the random number, 12345, we can calculate the combination
for white (black is mirrored from white through 4th/5th rank).
Placement of light squared bishop: 12345/5 = 2469 with no remainder.
the light squared bishop goes in it's first possible file, b.
Placement of the dark squared bishop: 2469/5 = 493 with remainder of
4. The dark squared bishop goes in it's last possible file, j.
Placement of the archbishop: 493/8 = 61 with remainder 5. The
archbishop goes into its 6th (note, lowest remainder is 0, not 1)
possible file. b and j are already taken, so the archbishop goes into
file g.
Position of the chancellor: 61/7 = 8 with remainder 5. The chancellor
goes into the 6th available file. b, g and j are taken, so the
chancellor goes into file h.
Placement of the queen: 8/6 = 1 with remainder 2. The queen goes into
the 3rd possible file. b, g, h and j are taken so the queen goes into
file d.
Placement of the two knights: The last integer result, 1, indicates
that the two knights occupy the 2nd possible combination of files,
1+3. b, d, g, h and j are taken, so the knights occupy files a and e.
The remaining three files (c, f and i) are filled by the two rooks and
the king, with the king inbetween the two rooks. Thus, the rooks go
into files c and i. The king goes into file f.
The set up for combination 12345 is:
knight-bishop-rook-queen-knight-king-archbishop-chancellor-rook-bishop.

One of the current most popular chess variants on the market today is
Gothic Chess, 'designed' by Edward Trice. The pieces row in Gothic chess
is as follows (from left(a-file) to right(j-file)):
rook-knight-bishop-queen-chancellor-king-archbishop-bishop-knight-rook on
a 10x8 board.
How to calculate the equivalent Capablanca84000 combination: The light
squared bishop is in the 4th possible file. We use the quotient 3.
The dark squared bishop is in the second possible file. For this we
use the quotient 1.
The archbishop is in the 6th possible file, quotient = 5.
The chancellor is in the 4th available file, quotient = 3.
The queen is in the 3rd available file, quotient = 2.
The knights are in the 6th possible orientation, quotient = 5.
Using these numbers we calculate backwards. The last quotient is 5.
The number 5 is achieved after dividing 30 by 6. 30 + 2 is the
previous number. 32 is achieved After dividing 224 by 7. 224 + 3
should be the previous number. 227 is achieved After dividing 1816 by
8. 1816 + 5 should be the previous number. 1821 is achieved After
dividing 9105 by 5. 9105 +1 should be the previous number. 9106 is
achieved by dividing 45530 by 5. The final calculation is to add the
first quotient, 3, to 45530 to give 45533.

The first Capablanca84000 combination is 00000. The last combination is
83999.

Capablanca84000 and its calculating system are intended to be made the
property of the public domain and may be used or improved by any entity,
or hosted for free on any internet website. The reason for designing
Capablanca84000 was to give something to the world of chess. It took under
an hour to design and I would not feel comfortable for receiving anything
more than acknowledgemnt of contribution, since no novel idea was
employed. I wish that no third party may charge or be charged for using
Capablanca84000. I wish for it to be public domain. I wish that the design
ownership belong to José Raúl Capablanca and Robert James Fischer.
I have 'designed' my own personal combination which I believe is unique
and the best set-up. Currently, I choose to keep this combination secret,
until I am the recognised 'designer' of it.

There is aready my proposal for Capablanca Random Chess. I repeat it here:

CAPABLANCA RANDOM CHESS (2004-Nov-26) Proposal 

This definition of CRC should cover the following goals:

a) creating an interesting drosophila for chess programmers 
b) using Capablancas 10x8 Chess board geometry 
c) using Capablancas piece set (incl. archbishop and chancellor) 
d) applying rules aligned to Fischer Random Chess 
e) avoiding conflicts to any claimed patents 

The CRC rules are: 

a) creating a starting position (one of 48.000): 
 1) the bishops have to be placed upon different colored
  squares; same rule applies to the implicite bishop pieces:
  queen and archbishop (aligned to FRC)
 2) the king always has to be placed somewhere between the 
  rooks to enable castlings (aligned to FRC)
 3) use only such positions without unprotected pawns (Chess)

b) describing a method of generating starting positions on 
   free squares by using a dice or random number generator: 
 1) select queen or the archbishop to be placed first (2x)
 2) place the selected 1st piece upon a bright square (5x)
 3) place the selected 2nd piece upon a dark square (5x)
 4) one bishop has to be placed upon a bright square (4x) 
 5) one bishop has to be placed upon a dark square (4x) 
 6) one chancellor has to be placed upon a free square (6x) 
 7) one knight has to be placed upon a free square (5x) 
 8) one knight has to be placed upon a free square (4x)/2 
 9) set the king upon the center of three free squares left
11) set the rooks upon the both last free squares left 
12) this establishes White's first row, the Black side 
    has to be built up symmetrically to this 
13) place ten pawns similar to traditional chess in a row 
14) skip this position if it has unprotected pawns or not
    at least three positions in line 1 differently filled
    compared to Gothic Chess (patented), this finally gives
    about 21.259 distinct starting arrays.
   
c) nature of (asymmetric Fischer-) castlings:
 1) castlings are (like in traditional chess) only valid
  if neither the affected king or rook has been moved, or
  there would be a need to jump over any third piece, or
  the king would be in chess somewhere from his starting
  position to his target field (both included). Therefore
  all squares between king and its target square (included) 
  have to be free from third pieces, same applies to the
  way the rook has to go to its target square.
 2) the alpha-castling (O-O-O, White's left side):
  like in FRC the king will be placed two rows distant
  from the border (here c-file) and the rook at the next 
  inner neighboured square.
 3) the omega-castling (O-O, White's right side):
  like in FRC the king will be placed one row distant
  from the border (here i-file) and the rook at the next 
  inner neighboured square.

d) performing castlings:
 within a GUI try to move the king upon the related rook
 or at least two squares into that direction; manually:
 1) move the king outside of the board
 2) move the rook to its end position (if need to)
 3) move the king to his end position

e) extended FEN encoding:
 1) the extended FRC-FEN could be used as a base
 2) 'a'/'A' are used to identify archbishops
 3) 'c'/'C' are used to identify chancellors
 4) '9' is used to mark nine empty squares
 5) '10' is used to encode ten empty squares
 6) if a castling enabled rook is not the most outer one
  at that side, the letter of his file has to be placed
  immediately following his castling marker symbol, where
  'q'/'Q' are used for the alpha-, 'k'/'K' for omega-side.
 
f) engine notation rules for castling moves:
 According to UCI convention the castling moves should be
 written by using both coordinates (source and target field)
 of the involved king. But there are castlings, where the 
 king does only one or none simple step. In that cases the 
 castling should be distinguishable by appending a 'k', like
 already practized in promotion moves to make them unique.
 Overmore an engine should accept O-O or O-O-O (no zeroes),
 but only use them, when the GUI would demand for such a
 less precise notation.

Capablanca Random Chess (CRC) and Capablanca84000 were hybridised from
previously existing ideas (by Robert James Fischer and Jose Raul
Capablanca) independantly by their respective authors. Capablanca84000 is
the property of the public domain. I request confirmation as to whether
CRC is also the property of the public domain. The author of
Capablanca84000 supports and acknowledges the work of the author of CRC.
CRC and Capablanca84000 are the fruit of the same idea by two independant
authors. CRC and Capablanca84000 are significantly different to allow the
employment of either mathematical system.
Capablanca84000 is a more direct hybrid of Capablanca Chess using the
Fischer Random Chess (FRC) system. CRC is a modified hybrid of Capablanca
Chess and the FRC system.

As for catering for the possible system result which gives a position
similar or identical to a previously existing 'patented' 'invention',
I would state that generating a random number does not breach any patent.
Further, applying this random number to mathematical system which is the
property of the public domain does not breach any patent. Coincidence does
not breach any patent.

I want to make clear, that I do not intent to patent the idea of CRC.
Everybody who like it, may use it freely. Nevertheless it is not public
domain concerning the idea, because I want to be asked when changes or
improvements should become necessary. In so far I claim my copyright on
that idea. 

As an example currently there is a discussion, how the new pieces should
be represented. Indeed it seems neither being simple nor to be skipped
finding appropriate icons DISTINCT to existing and RELATED to the GAITS of
the represented pieces. The solution Smirf (my program being able to play
FRC and CRC, see: [http://www.chessbox.de/_tmp/SmirfPrototyp.png]) provides
for that problem thus avoids the usage of horse heads or bishop hats. And
for newcomers additionally to those pictures it might be helpful also to
use new and better names, where some already have been introduced here: 

CROSSED SWORDS: A=ARCHANGEL (ger. E=Erzengel, protecting the paradise with
swords) instead of Archbishop or Janus 
ROOK on a HORSESHOE: C=CENTAUR (ger. Z=Zentaur, because of its double
nature, horse part below) instead of Chancellor

See for that at: [http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachveri1_e.html]

To Greg Strong: I still want to avoid unnecessary conflicts with Ed Trice.
Nevertheless I agree, that randomly produced starting arrays hardly could
be regarded as trial to break a patent, where chances are 1:21.000. May be
it would help to specify an ERC variant: EUROPEAN RANDOM CHESS without
that GC avoiding rule, because such patents seem not to be valid in Europe,
also reflecting the European history of that extended 10x8 variant.

Reinhard, may i suggest an improvement to CRC? it seems to me that you
wish
to limit the number of credible variations to 'as low a number as
possible', to increase the overall credibility of the system. in
Capablanca84000, i considered deleting 42,000 of the variations since
they
are mirror images of the other 42,000. however, the reason behind
Capablanca84000 was to expose a conman using the traditional Fischer
system and no new formulae of my own (except those required for
Capablanca's archbishop and chancellor). thus, i am happy with the
number
84,000. indeed, i could even introduce more than 84,000 if i wanted to by
not being strict about bishops or rooks.
by introducing my suggestion you can get CRC down to about 10,000
variations [edited]. especially since
Capablanca84000 belongs not to I, but to the public domain. [edited]
my suggestion comes in several forms:
A: king must be to the right of the queen. traditional, includes
'invented' position.
B: king must be to the left of the queen. untraditional, deletes need for
patent skirting.
C: king must be on the right side of the board. see A.
D: king must be on the left side of the board. see B.

What is your goal, taa? Supposing you are intelligent I prosume you could
imagine that I notice that you are anonymously spreading desinformation
and nonsense here. Because the castlings like in Chess960 are not
symmetric, there is no redundance of mirrored positions. And CRC of course
is not trying to get as few as possible starting arrays, but instead to
filter positions, which eventually could be used as polemic arguments
against CRC, and to secure a more harmonic impression of that approach.

you might be right, i based the castling assumption on something else.
something i assumed before i learnt about fischer castling.
take standard chess and its mirror as variations in chess960. castling
would be the only difference between the two, other than
left-hand/right-hand bias. that's a shame.
my goal, is to liberate capablanca chess from the slavery which that
person has put it under, with his incredible patent. (note, contrary to
popular opinion, incredible doesn't mean good, it means 'not credible')

ok, i didn't quite get the distinction, but here is my comment on
cappablanca chess in general: it gives rooks more power, and takes too
much power from the knights. the addition of the 16 extra squares reduces
the board mobility of the knights, a pivitol piece in Chess and Fischer
Random Chess. 

and i also find the two new peices to be just a tad extravagant. i think
if i want new peices, play 'chess with different armies', my new
favorite besides FRC. (my prefference now goes: FRC, CwDA, then chess,
then cappablanca chess.) 

anyway, FRC was invented because of how boring openings have gotten in
Chess, because there are millions of pages written about the openings
alone, and everyone is playing off of memory, not playing chess. 

CRC and Cappablanca 84000 are simply superfluous in this way, because
cappablanca chess itself doesn't yet (and perhaps never will) have the
problem of opening memorizations.  

anyway, this is what i think. mostly just taste, but a little informed
opinion as well.

Does anyone happen to know what year this game was invented?  Amazingly
enough, there is no mention of FRC in Pritchard's encyclopedia.  I would
like to supply such basic information as year of invention for all games
supported by ChessV, so any information would be helpful!

Thanks,
Greg

it was invented in 1996 by Robert Fischer in Argentina.  

http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/fullchess1b_e.html

'Giving history lessons to the people on this web site is very low on my
list of priorities.'
_____________________

If your definitive history lessons must include condescending remarks
toward this entire group, then I am confident we can survive completely
without your input.

The CAPABLANCA-RANDOM-CHESS idea goes back to early 2004. One of the first
publishings of that idea has been made by me at July 1st, 2004 in 

http://www.bauer-schweitzer.de/forum/index.html

From Chessbase:
Breaking news: Fischer comeback?
27.05.2005 Bobby Fischer is considering returning to the arena of
competitive chess. Yesterday he met with his former adversary Boris
Spassky, who travelled to Iceland with the expressed purpose of 'drawing
Fischer back to the chessboard'. Fischer is agreeable to the notion, but
insists on a worthy opponent and Fischer Random rules.

Well, don't buy a non-refundable airline ticket to Iceland for this event
just yet.  Fischer is notoriously eccentric and difficult to negotiate
with.

The weird thing is that I suspect all of the publicity surrounding his
detention in Japan and fugitive status in US-America made this tentative
event hold stronger interest to the public and hence, more feasible as a
business venture.

Fischer is eccentric for sure, and I have no doubt that he knows how to
play his status to his advantage (monetary or otherwise.)  What gives me
hope is his requirement for 'fischer random' rules.  To me, this
suggests that his eccentricity is focused on the popularization of FRC and
not on direct income.  Given that this is his purpose (allegdly) the
question is whether other top-level players will agree.  His other
requirement was world-class competition, and I truely wonder how many
other grand-masters will be willing to play him at his own game (despite
the fact that 'his game' is designed to level the playing field by
removing opening book knowledge.)

Fischer vs. Topalov
Fischer Random Chess
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=53662

According to this news report, both are willing to play one another.
Will negotiations over money and the details of the competition hold-up,
though?

Yes, but was Fischer just being Fischer? The question has been asked
before. By the way, Karpov says he will play Fischer, even if it is FRC,
and there is an article out now showing Fischer meeting with Kasparov!!!!
Can this be true? http://www.GothicChess.com/news.html is the link.
Exciting stuff if it were so.

It is significant news for chess960 (a.k.a. Fischer Random Chess) when a
major new chess book is published that is largely devoted to chess960.

I therefore would like to encourage the editors to add mention of this
new
chess960 book to this web page.

The book info is:

Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960:
Usable Strategies of Fischer Random Chess Discovered
   by
Gene Milener

ISBN  0-9774521-0-7
Page count 252

More information, including an extended excerpt, is available at
http://CastleLong.com/.

Available at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, BarnesAndNoble.com, and
elsewhere.

This chess book is about both chess960 and chess1, because it compares
and
contrasts them.  This teaches us things about both rule sets that are
harder to see when studying either in isolation.

Thank you.

Very good, I hope you can develop a chess game to download and promote de
fischerandom,

cheers from Argentina

Hi Gene, I mentioned your book near to mine at my SMIRF / ChessBox pages:
http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachbuch.html . Unfortunately my German
language book on Chess960 is sold only rarely about 10 pieces per quarter.
So I hope for you to have better success with yours ... ;-)

Your book is enlighting a lot of details also on 'fights' about right or
wrong extended FEN and move representation for engines playing Chess960.
Meanwhile the unnecessarily invented Fritz numbering scheme for Fischer
Random Chess luckily has been withdrawn by an update of that program.

Regards, Reinhard.

material values- all pieces
Fischer Random Chess
http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/values-chess.pdf

We have a [returning] Chess 960 World Champion:

Levon Aronian.

Anand fought back hard but Armenian Levon Aronian proved to be too good, beating the Indian Grandmaster in tiebreaker in a thrilling final to clinch the Chess 960 World Championships.

My suggestion for a way to randomize the starting positions (also works with all shuffles) and also record this position in a way that is self-explanatory for the nature of the positions.  Please feel free to comment. 

Need 8 cards or tiles numbered 1-8.
These cards or tiles represent columns on a chessboard.  Numbers are used instead of letters, for notation purposes (see below).  Numbers correspond to different columns. 1=A, 2=B, 3=C, 4=D, 5=E, 6=F, 7=G, 8=H .   The space the pieces would go in are in the row they would normally set up in.  In normal chess, white goes into row 1 and black in row 8.  

Will place pieces in following order: Bishops, King, Rooks, Queen, Knights.  Pawns remain where they normally should be.  Whenever a card has been picked, then that card is separated from remaining cards to be used to determine placement of pieces.

To place Bishops: Separate cards into odd and even piles.  Shuffle and deal out one from each.  First place odd, then even numbers.  Record these two numbers. Example: Card 5 and card 6 came up.  Bishops are put in columns E (card 5) and F (card 6).  Record first two digits as 56

To place King: Gather together all cards that were not selected. Separate 1 and 8 cards from these cards. If the 1 card was already selected, then separate out the 2 card.  If the 8 card has already been selected, then separate out the 7 card.  These cards will be added back in to select placement of Rooks and Queen.  Shuffle together these remaining cards, and select 1.  Record this number.  Example: Card 3 came up.  Rook is put in column C (card 3).  Next digit is recorded as a 3.  The current record of pieces placed is 563.

To place Rooks: Look at position of King.  Gather together all remaining cards in a lower position than position of King in one pile (following with example here, cards 1 and 2) and all remaining cards in a higher position than King (following the ongoing examples, this would be cards 4, 7, 8).  Random select from first pile one card (or if there is only one card, then that is the position), and from second pile one card.  Record these numbers (lower then higher), and place rooks in these columns.  In this ongoing set of examples, let's say 2 and 8 were selected.  The numbers two and 8 would be recorded with the other numbers, and Rooks placed in the B (card 2) column and H (card 8) column.  The current record of pieces would be 56328

To place Queen: Take remaining cards together shuffle, and select one.  Queen would go in that column.  In this ongoing example, the remaining cards would be 1, 4, 7.  For this example, say the 1 card was picked.  Queen would be placed in the A column (card 1).  The current record would be 563281.  This is the final recorded position.

To place the Knights:  Place them in the two remaining empty positions.  In the ongoing example here, the remaining cards would be 4 and 7.  The Knights are placed in columns D (card 4) and column G (card 7).

To sum up, the position generated by this is: 564281 (b56 k3 r28 q1).  This is also the notation name for the position. 

Board set up would look like this:
qrknbbnr
pppppppp

[Empty spaces between pieces]

PPPPPPPP
QRKNBBNR

-------------------------------------
For a more random shuffle, in games without castling, the order of the pieces is done the same, but with less restrictions.  For color balance of Bishops, the same idea of sorting the cards by odd or even would apply.  Bishops would be then put on appropriate spaces.  Say 1 and 8 were picked.  The notation would be: 18 for Bishops.

Then the King would placed.  Say 2 was picked.  Notation would be 182

Then the Rooks would be placed.  Say 5, 7 were picked.  Notation would be so far 18257

Then the Queen would be placed.  Say position 3 was picked.  Notation would be 182573

Knights would be placed in empty spaces.

Pieces would be in following configuration:
BKQNRNRB

Final notation for this position is: 182573

The new world champion Hikaru Nakamura!  
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5626
Randomized 8x8 came and went already many times. Researchers could write books on CVs randomizing pieces. Next to Carrera (RN) and (BN), shuffling is the most popular type of CV in all time for designers cooking something up.  Pritchard 'ECV' under Baseline Chess records year 1851 at Baden Baden score between van der Hoeven and von der Lasa starting BKRRBNNQ. Pritchard's source is 'Dizionario Enciclopedico degli Scacchi'. It's what we call FRC or Chess960 now for purely political reasons. The variables in the theme for these 200 years, since Alexandre's invention, chiefly include: (1) whether non-mirrors allowed (2) players select or not (3) how much free placement. Also included (4) what CV to start with, since it doesn't have to be really 8x8 RNBQKBNR, but instead such as Capablanca 8x10. 
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/bbchess/bbchess.html Before is a plenteous one by Professor Shoenfelder on 10x10 more liberally predisposed than even Benko's Pre-Chess.
At that time of Capablanca Chess inception, around 1921 Erich Brunner began popularizing 8x8 Random as Free Chess. FC tourneys in 1920s happened at Switzerland and England, like Mainz 2006-2009 repeats now. The difference between Free and FRC is mostly respecting #(2) above; for Free the answer is Yes, and for Fischer the answer is No.

Fischer is the 'inventor' because only he had the audacity to come up with this seemingly convoluted but quite logical castling rules. It is truly amazing that world caliber players are now playing this variant - it is really taking off. 

Treating the squares c1 and g1 as safety bunkers for the king - castling makes perfect sense .  

With this in mind, I have a new idea one i may submit soon regarding shuffle chess. An alternative to castling,  King's leap to the b or g squares (from any position in backrank), applicable to shuffle chess and seemingly never 'invented' before in the 'exact form' i propose. In conjunction to Fischer random castling slightly modified - I call this new system: King to Bunker Leap. It is applicable to shuffle chess and to pre-chess. 

There are many who would differ that 'Chess 1' is exhausted though. I tend to agree to some degree, with the caveat 'for high rated > 2000 elo' or for  those not willing to specialize in 1 game. 
Try 'exhausting to compete in' instead. 

Excellence in Chess 1 translates almost directly to full capability in 960 with some debacles because of unfamiliarity with weird angles and so forth. 

Nakamura could very well be future world champ. But Anand competed very strongly in this event losing to Aronian years back. 

Note that computers win in chess 960 just as easily, but novelties/opening preparation not an issue here, though one can always attempt to memorize 960 position opening theory to some extent.

http://www.chessbase.com/news/2009/mainz/games/960_02.htm
Look at win in 26 and win in 22 by Nakamura over Aronian. (Sounds like Nay-Array)
All these 500 years we did not realize the way to play was say nay to array.
Doesn't Aronian seems to be ahead in drawn game 7 at move 30. Up three points for over 15 turns til around #45. Instead of 32 R-d6 what's wrong with 33 Rxd7, breaking up the Black Bishop pair and still up a Pawn? (Not for long), but there must be something around there, moves 30-45, before the Rook is pinned and the point value doesn't mean anything. Variantists have to start annotating again somewhere -- Betza alone used to annotate a lot in CVP -- and Chess960 is a good place, since, since Alexandre in 1820s, shuffle is a legitimate chess alteration. The trick is to find rules-set everyone can be interested in, and so far only Chess960 fits that for whole scores.  I have to admit the same sentence could have been said in 1999. That only Random Chess fits that for whole scores. That's appalling really, making everything else for a decade and a half having been experimentation, trial and error, even Betza's.
http://chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/missmark.html
There Betza annotates Missing the Mark.

'I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, or really it's dead. A lot of people have come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavour. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.' 

- Bobby Fischer as quoted in http://www.chess960.net/quotes

OrthoChess64 is not popular anymore all the way to the top. Not the way it would cause great excitement in past centuries. Call F.I.D.E.-approved 64 squaress ''PastChess'' if you would. You'll never recreate the Fischer-Spassky atmosphere or any of dozens others with existing format.
Nakamura on death of Chess, followed by Fischer:
http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2005/NB_ChessDead.html
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=153
Something's in the air. You can smell it. Every pundit feels compelled to weigh in, with varying degree of manners, and some of them get to where they take the opposite tack to stifle news of reform, as Hutnik points out ''persona non grata.'' We're talking over a decade or two, including all the history of CVPage. CVPage itself is one of the best evidences for the winds of change.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+dylan/the+times+they+are+achangin_20021240.htm.
//World population triples to 7 billion by 2011 from 1940 2.3 billion, and the percentage who are Chess players steadily declines in the West. A big loss of players has to be to online action games, but I think the right CVs, including FRC, could reverse the trends.

Also have a look at 'Fischer Placement Chess' :
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/fischerplacement.htm
/Mats

Re: Number of arrays for Fischer Random.

The way that you have had this calculated is strictly correct however it
was overlooked that a mirror image is actually the same position.

For example:
The position B B R K R N N Q is reasonably simply. It is the same to play
in every way as the position Q N N R K R B B.

Hence there are only 480 true variations ( 16 x 20 x 3 / 2 ). This is still
a lot to memorize. I wouldn't recommend trying.

BMunage

Agree with H.G.

Castling makes both positions different, and no symmetrical.

For instance, g-castling (O-O):

In 'B B R K R N N Q' g-castling is accomplished by the King jumping 3 squares, and the Rook moving once.

In 'Q N N R K R B B' g-castling is accomplished by just having the King jump over the f-rook, while the rook stays on the same spot.

Also, b-castling in one of the positions is not equivalent to g-castling on the other.

There is no symmetry because of castling.

If both rook needed to be at least 3 squares one the left (and the other on the right) side of king how many positions would we have?

Some thing that mystifies me, is why the preference for a randomised setup in Chess 960.

A game that had a "zeroeth move" allowing both players to choose their preferred 960 array has potentially richer strategy, and the potential for black to counterract white advantage, by having the "answering" array.

By "richer strategy", it's sounds like you mean,  a predetermined strategy. Doesn't this defeat the point of having a random starting position?

By "richer strategy", it's sounds like you mean,  a predetermined strategy. Doesn't this defeat the point of having a random starting position?

Regression to predetermined strategy would be countteracted by Blacks freedom to choose an answering array.

This gives 921,600 starting positions.

Depending on how much of a counteradvantage Black gains, moves could be staggered-White places a piece, Black answers.

A constructive phase would add to Chesses itinerary, though how much genuine extra depth is added by such pregame metastrategy and how much real nuance these premoves would have I'm not sure.

Your version reduces freedom of array selection, and you artificially reverse moves in placement, forcing Black to place first to further enhance Whites advantage.

"White first move advantage is necessary for strategic tension."

Could you elaborate on this?

All changes in nature depend on potential differences. A waterfall creates energy because there is a difference between high and low. In chess, there is a difference in "altitude", too. White has an advantage, which is converted to either a tactical or strategical initiative. This gives rise to fine pieces of art as well as interesting theory, because the potential serves to energize the game. 

It is possible to design a game in which this potential doesn't exist, but then it isn't Western chess anymore. For instance, I think Shogi and Xiangqi are different in this respect. I don't know about Shogi, but Xiangqi does not have the same status as chess. In China it is regarded as kind of vulgar, although it is great fun.

So that's why I wanted, in the relocation variants, to retain white's first move advantage. Otherwise it isn't chess anymore, and it won't become as popular. The positions chosen are all very natural. There are no awkward positions, as in Chess960.

Moreover, compared with Chess960, in some of the variants the array has been expanded, since there are also non-mirrored positions. Non-mirrored starting positions are congenial with real warfare. See my article, "Relocation variants": http://mlwi.magix.net/bg/relocationvariants.htm
--Mats

The popularity of chess over the other variants is clearly due to its more compact, logical and symettrical design. Its a more modern game, aesthetically more appealing and easier to learn.

To celebrate first move advantage as the central selling point, to be preserved at all costs, is risible. Its a bug, not a feature, as it is in any other strategy game.

As for "tension", white retains move initiative, but against a prepared 960 array of black. The "tension" is now dual.

And as for some 960 arrays being awkward well, yes, but they wouldn't have to play them (in nonrandomised asymettrical).

Johnny, it appears from your comment that you aren't familiar with chess theory. It revolves around white's first move advantage and how to retain it.  As soon as theorists discovers a method to neutralize white's advantage, that particular opening is virtually dead. This has happened to many openings, such as the King's gambit, which is hardly ever played anymore. Were it to happen to all openings, it would mean the death of chess.
--Mats

And yet the entire purpose of Fischer Random and like variants is in eradicating theory based openings altogether...

As a variant that's close to chess, Fischer Random (aka Chess960) does the trick of avoiding all opening theory admirably.

One thing Chess960 lacks compared to chess is ironically usually seen as it's very strength and reason to exist, i.e. that one can't study Chess960 opening theory at home (if that's viewed as desirable/enjoyable), plus book sales thus will suffer, arguably to the detriment of popularizing the variant. This would be partly due to not otherwise having more literature around (i.e. about the opening phase of Chess960).

A way to solve that to some extent is to adopt Kasparov's idea of using the same starting position for a year & then switching to a new one. I'd go farther and suggest not switching the start position for 50 or even 100+ years (chess opening theory took a long time to develop, after all). One drawback of this idea is that the game would be studied to death by, say, 960x100 years from now, whereas never knowing the position one will begin with, as per the rules of Chess960, would avoid such study. However, the lifespan of any board game of skill (e.g. chess) is liable to be finite for one reason or another, IMO.

My estimates for the values of chess pieces applies here too, naturally: P=1; N=3.49; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10 and a fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Kevin, you raise a good point about book sales, etc., but as for the "one year per setup" idea, I think Fischer's original plan was to avoid the opening theory discussion altogether.  If everyone studied one particular random setup for a year, I'll bet White's advantage would be exploited even moreso than it is in the standard setup.

With a random setup, determined just before the game starts, you can just look at a random position between two players and enjoy the actual battle of minds in that moment.  The match would be 100% performance-based, instead of being so preparation-based.

@HG,

I remembered seeing a diagram with randomized setup, but I cannot find it anymore.

I don't recall ever doing an Interactive Diagram on Chess960. It would not be able to handle the castling. If there ever has been a Diagram of a shuffle variant, it must have been one with normal castling.

Fischer castling now should work in the Interactive Diagram, including the AI.

<script type="text/javascript" src="/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js">
</script>
<div class="idiagram">
  graphicsDir=/graphics.dir/alfaeriePNG35/
  graphicsType=png
  symmetry=mirror
  shuffle=N!BRQK
  pawn::::a2-h2
  knight:N:::b1,g1
  bishop::::c1,f1
  rook::::a1,h1
  queen::Q::d1
  king::::e1
</div>