While waiting for the debate...
I'll throw out this fact: Of my Chess 960 opponents most recently online eight out of nine of them have higher standard chess ratings. What explains this? The obvious fact that many Chess 960 players have actually played much more standard chess, so that their standard chess rating has had more chance to creep up, does not fully explain this -- no, far from it!
While waiting...
Only one player had a higher Chess 960 rating, but only 27 points above the standard chess rating. Overall, the nine players have standard ratings that are, on average, 170 points higher than their Chess 960 ratings.
I agree. When we have Vote Chess 960 games i can tell in the first 3 moves who is over rated. They make mindless moves that make think what is your rank again.
Chess960 requires strategy and sometimes the fundamentals can be broken if you see a chance to attack early and possible end the game. One time i did a premature attack with the threat of mate. My was that he/she see it and defend it. But my opponent did not know it would place their king and position where they could not make the plans they wanted to use. Pieces getting more cramped than they already were at the beginning of the game.
At the same time sticking to fundamentals can win you the game. I can not mention the number of times i attacked up the Middle in Vote Chess games and some of mine. Plus their is a chance to take away the opponents 0-0. A very obvious and easy plan but many overlook it or see it not worth it. Are you joking me. I think they do not know how to attack the king untiel they reach the End Game.
Another thing i see missing is Tactics. If they can not pin the Knight they are lost. Creativity is gone. In some cases if you start pushing pawn in fron of their king they panic and make mistakes.Then just castle away from exposed position and attack what the pawns exposed.
Maybe once in 20 games i get to place the pieces into an opening i know. This is a big one missed altogether. And once you reach the middle game of this situation it is like shooting ducks in water. I just could not believe they let me set it without resistance.
"Like shooting ducks in water" -- I like that, royalbishop! The thing is that, since the rules are the same between Chess 960 and standard, one brings the same skills to the board. But because the Chess 960 position is totally unfamiliar, some panic, and everyone finds the opening much harder going, playing against an equal opponent, at least.
"Like shooting ducks in water" -- I like that, royalbishop! The thing is that, since the rules are the same between Chess 960 and standard, one brings the same skills to the board. But because the Chess 960 position is totally unfamiliar, some panic, and everyone finds the opening much harder going, playing against an equal opponent, at least.
About the rules. They do not always apply. I have seen plenty of boards where moving certain pawn will expose the King and does not have time to castle due to a piece can not develop properly like it normally would in standard games.
Sometimes you have to allow a weakness to attack your opponent. It is like when the knights start of in the corner. You can storm the wing with pawns and add the fact that it is not obvious what your doing makes it even greater. With 1 less piece to use early the game can get ugly for your opponent if you dare to be bold.
I have seen some Chess 960 boards that just said whoever is white wins. If your black get on defense then and hope white gives you any breaks and take full advantage of it when it happens. It is tough when white has so many options of attack at move 1.
Now move on to the Bishops which i think stinks when one of them is on the d-file or e-file when the game starts. By theory where do you develop them without getting them in the way. Plus if you delay too long developing them they are lost till the end game or the rest of the game. But in standard this is not the same. Even behind pawns the bishop still has a chance early in the middle game.
Rooks are what they are and get what they want but placed in the wrong spot in Chess960 like d-file or e-file can delay castling as every piece has to move on that wing to castle on that wing. Which in some case the Bishop has to develop before the knight. Ouch!
Queens on the b-file and g-file. Well that just is not right. A Queen should never be hanging near a corner for a lengthy period of time!
The above calls for response...
Again, the rules are the same in Chess 960 as in standard, and they castle in the exact same place! (I don't remember how that rule is written, though.) I think that the above was saying that the opening principles used in standard do not always apply. To that, the answer is clearly YES, Opening Principles always apply in Chess 960 -- although they may take a different practical application, depending on the position.
It is vital to note that the Opening Principles (caps intended) are not rigid. For example, knights should generally be developed before bishops -- for a certain reason. If you know the reason, then you are NOT bending the rules when you develop a bishop for that reason before the knights.
The difficulty, I think, is that most do not know the Opening Principles thoroughly, so they have difficulties when trying to apply principles that they don't know thoroughly to Chess 960 play. I have never in 40 games so far been stumped by a Chess 960 opening position -- bear with me, please! -- I mean that I have always been able to detect in hindsight my errors in opening play in Chess 960 based on the Opening Principles and have ALWAYS come up with the correct move based on those principles!!! My conclusion is that the Opening Principles are often much harder to apply in Chess 960 -- but there is always a way!!! That is why I analyze each loss...
So what is the precise reason why one does not generally move a bishop before the knights in opening play? If you know, you should be a winner!
While waiting for the reason why not to move bishop before knight...
YES, CHESS 960 IS BEST MEASURE OF CHESS SKILL -- YEAH!!!
Yes, one proof for me is determining one's initial error in one's Chess 960 opening play, and then calculating the average. My current average, just for the games I have lost, is: 6.5 moves for my initial error.
That's like saying shogi is the best measure of chess skill. It makes no sense.
The best measure of chess skill is chess played at long (or no) time controls with no help outside of your own mind.
But, hey, I'm not THAT bad, am I??
No! This just proves that Chess 960 is much harder going in the openings, and so it demands greater chess skill, particularly in applying the opening principles. In standard chess, one follows mainlines and so one's first or initial error in a game, even for those one plays badly and loses, would happen much later in the game, say by move 12,15 or later for 1600-1800 level players.
@wafflemaster: Excuse me, but I have only been comparing Chess 960 with standard chess, even though I did not put that in the forum title. I would not compare Chess 960 with other variants, and that was not my purpose in the forum. I am just saying that Chess 960 is the best measure of chess skill, compared with standard otb, Blitz, Bullet or standard played by 3-day moves, etc. Okay?
Chess 960 is the best measure of chess 960 skill
@SaharanKnight: your reasoning tacitly assumes that rote learning of openings should not be counted as 'Chess skill'. But this is rather arbitrary. Furthermore, by claiming Chess960 as 'the best', you do indeed compare it to all other variants. Otherwise your claim should be tuned down to "Chess960 is a better measure of Chess skills than Chess itself".
It could very well be that Shogi skill is a better measure of skills in ordinary Chess than Chess960 is. (Not likely, because Shogi is all about drops, but one could substitute Gothic Chess. Now Gothic Chess is much more tactical than ordinary Chess, because of the additional super-pieces. So if one would be allowed to arbitrarily equate 'Chess skills' with 'tactical ability', and throw out strategy together with rote learning, it would actually be very likely that Gothic Chess is a better yardstick than Chess960. It all depends on how you redefine 'Chess skills' once you decide that 'ability to win ordinary Chess games' is not what it means.)
At the risk of taking this seriously for a moment...
I think you feel like it measures chess skill because a player has to rely on calculation, tactics, and very general strategic knowledge (yes, middle games are changed too, not just openings).
What you probably don't take into account is opening knowledge and middle game knowledge are a big part of chess skill. If you want to talk about measuring tactics and general strategic knowledge you might as well say shogi is the best measure of chess skill (hence my previous comment).
Furthermore, if your point is that chess960 eliminates the advantage of memorized knowledge then there is the problem that chess960 doesn't alter the endgame where memorized theory, key positions, and experience would greatly help a player. It would not just help them in the endgame but also the middle game. In which case my previous suggesting of shogi is actually superior to your suggestion of chess960 
@wafflemaster: Excuse me, but I have only been comparing Chess 960 with standard chess, even though I did not put that in the forum title. I would not compare Chess 960 with other variants, and that was not my purpose in the forum. I am just saying that Chess 960 is the best measure of chess skill, compared with standard otb, Blitz, Bullet or standard played by 3-day moves, etc. Okay?
@HGMuller: Thanks for your input; however, what I said about comparing is clear enough. I think that one cannot change the forum title now, but yes, I mean what you said in expanded form: "Chess960 is a better measure of Chess skills than Chess itself" -- that is, standard chess. And please be fair, I am not "tuning down" my proposition -- that is, I never did compare it with other variants, and that was not the purpose of this forum. If you or anyone else wants to talk about other variants, PLEASE do that in another forum, okay?
...If you want to talk about measuring tactics and general strategic knowledge you might as well say shogi is the best measure of chess skill (hence my previous comment).
Furthermore, if your point is that chess960 eliminates the advantage of memorized knowledge then there is the problem that chess960 doesn't alter the endgame where memorized theory, key positions, and experience would greatly help a player. It would not just help them in the endgame but also the middle game. In which case my previous suggesting of shogi is actually superior to your suggestion of chess960
Whether shogi is a better measure of chess skill sounds like an interesting and valid discussion -- for those who know shogi, of course! Again, please save that discussion for another forum.
Saying that
Chess 960 is best measure of chess skill (understand: compared with standard chess otb, blitz, bullet, etc.)
... the above has been presented by me in this forum as a proposition for objective, logical discussion, not as a bare claim. It used to be said that (standard) chess games are often won in the openings, but that may no longer be a general truth because so much work has been done on the openings since... However, in Chess 960, it is still generally true, and should be true for a good while longer. As I said, the average of my initial errors in my Chess 960 losing games was 6.5 moves... so I was losing those games after 6-7 moves.
Computers really changed the chess landscape.With regards to openings,everyone stands at level field.Kasparov of today would still be a dominant force in the chess scene.However,you will seldom see him achieve his favorite intiative based positions.He will have to rely on other aspects of the game.Magnus Carlsen is doing this.Get out of theory and endgame them to death.
Now with regards to Chess 960 being the best measure of chess skill.We need to define what chess skill is first.
For some reason,people view opening memorization as lousy.Opening preparation is part of the game and therefore it is a skill.Why then are people quick to point out opening brilliancies as undeserved of its own brilliance?
Between two players,a lazy genius vs a hardworking man.I would root for the hardoworker.
I am usually not one to debate, I'd rather get the facts out there that everyone can agree with... but this is a topic that leaves room for debate!
I think that Chess 960 is a better measure than standard chess -- played as blitz, bullet chess, 3-day moves, etc., or even standard chess played in live tournaments. For me, I have no doubt about that -- the question just is why?
The immediate answer is two-fold, and many miss the second point: 1) The Chess 960 positions are random; 2) the great majority of those positions, but not all, have assymmetry between the left and right sides of the board. This is the crucial second dimension. What do you think?