Perhaps what they call a "rebranding" is in order for Chess960.
Has it not gone through several names in English in a short time?
It was Shuffle Chess, then Fischer Random Chess, then Fischer 960, then Chess 960.
"Chess 960" is the stupidest sounding of the lot. Why not call it something catchy such as "D Chess"?
What would the 'D' imply?
Shuffle Chess and Chess 960 are similar but not the same, btw.
It is being clever marketing. It may "imply" many things but means nothing. But, it is catchy.
D Chess.
I think we should simply start calling it D Chess from now. Any objection to the change?
It is being clever marketing. It may "imply" many things but means nothing. But, it is catchy.
D Chess.
Hehe, that's actually really smart.
But to be honest, I think the name is still the coolest thing about Chess 960. Some purists might still call it Fischerandom Chess, because the man is its inventor after all. Maybe he just wanted something with his name in its title, because the idea to randomly place the pieces around before the game starts was out there years before Fischer formulated its rules.
The best quote I have rread recently was written on the page of a chess 960 tournament. It says : "good luck with your opening preperations".
Classical chess favors experience and methodical preperations ( which can be achieved easily if somebody is determined to do so) over mental strength i.e. chess skills, understanding and vision.
My advice is: challange yourself to do well in chess 960, it will not only help your regular chess but also give you more satisfaction and self respect. Force your brain to think hard rather than systamatize it.
difference between the best student of the class and genius innovator. :P
An unrated game I played 10 minutes ago, which started with a very clever trap.
Like Fischer said, "old chess" was bad in his opinion because it was based on a lot of memorization of theory and had a lot less room for creativity (referencing his era, not even computer era which has even more theory). Fischer promoted Fischer random because he said while imperfect it allowed for much more creativity and calculation and vision rather than memorized theory and position principles. Instead of starting to play chess on move 9, 15, or 25, you start on move 1 because there are no standard openings to play, you have to make your own opening decisions based on how the pieces are layed out each game.
I think Fischer random has some great bonuses and side effects to "old chess" or classical chess. Being able to come up with ideas and plans in all sorts of positions and being able to create your own "theory" in Fischer random, like when to break classical chess principles and when to stick to them, can help you improve your ability to understand positions in classical chess more, and know when at times breaking classical chess principles may apply. You probably could also greatly learn how pieces work together more and how to use them more effectively being randomly placed at the beginning of the game. I'd be interested in seeing how well a player who plays mostly Fischer random for a few years would do coming back to classical chess.
Mocking something because you're not good at it is beyond ridiculous. When I was a kid I sucked at basketball but my mother forced me to play and I hated it. Today I'm still pretty bad so should I conclude that basketball is not a real sport? This thread is moronic.
You might want to consider what exactly makes your play in "normal" chess better. That last game was just full of blunders. c4 drops a pawn, Qc5 puts the queen right in front of a bishop. All the while you were developing your pieces at just about every move. I don't think the opening or relative placement of the pieces had anything to do with it. Perhaps your gambit was justified and the pawn shouldn't have been taken. There are gambits in normal chess that shouldn't be accepted you know.
In 960 some positions are actually better for White but I thought they required you to play a game with colors reversed to fix that.
960 is great and will definitely help you improve in regular chess. It forces you to think on your own in the opening as to what is the best way to develop your pieces rather than relying on heavily analyzed theoretical opening moves that were just memorized. It requires you to assess what's going on in middle game positions that aren't that common. The point is it forces you to think and plan. Sounds to me like you should study those ideas rather than just chalking up 960 as dubious.
Thanks for all your answers. I put the last game just there for the comical relief, never really expected to win against someone 600 points higher than me. I realize I suck a$$ in 960 and Regular, but at least the classic version allows you to improve yourself whereas in Fischerandom ... well, at this point I'm just repeating myself. 
I'll just let this thread die now, enough loathing for a day!
None of this is true. He gets bad results bc chess 960 is flawed...duh!
owltuna wrote:
Sorry to not let the thread die, but.... That game you posted deserves comment. I'm only on move three, and you have three times violated basic opening principles. Two flank pawns to the fourth rank and an early queen excursion. Granted, under many circumstances the move c4 is sound, but here it makes no sense. Now look at the opponent. Two knight moves, and a pawn sac to hasten development. That's basic.
If you discipline yourself to play sound opening moves, as taught from Steinitz on through to Seirawan, you won't find yourself 600 points lower than an 1800 player anymore. Simply playing sound opening strategy, in my experience so far on this site, will get a player over the 1500 mark in no time (at least in Online Chess).
None of this is true. He gets bad results bc chess 960 is flawed...duh!
owltuna wrote:
Sorry to not let the thread die, but.... That game you posted deserves comment. I'm only on move three, and you have three times violated basic opening principles. Two flank pawns to the fourth rank and an early queen excursion. Granted, under many circumstances the move c4 is sound, but here it makes no sense. Now look at the opponent. Two knight moves, and a pawn sac to hasten development. That's basic.
If you discipline yourself to play sound opening moves, as taught from Steinitz on through to Seirawan, you won't find yourself 600 points lower than an 1800 player anymore. Simply playing sound opening strategy, in my experience so far on this site, will get a player over the 1500 mark in no time (at least in Online Chess).
Dude, as a matter of fact ... at the time of writing this post, I'm actually better than you at 960! lol!! 
What do you think is all false? Are you responding to owltuna's previous comment or just randomly letting off some steam? It's okay, I never intended to pass on some universal truths, but merely expressed my opinion. That's why we got these forums, right?
Wow. For starters you apparently can pick up on sarcasm as my last post was clearly just that. That person was not wrong at all, and did a good job pointing out the flaws in your game, and not the phantom flaws you suggest there are in chess 960. 2nd of all your rating his higher because I never play 960. In 1 year I've played 16 games, the last one was 3 months ago. (btw its 12 points higher, which is basically the same rating so the fact that your debating based on that is absurd). 3rd, our 960 ratings have nothing to do with the fact that your original opinion which was you concluding that 960 is flawed because you suck at it is still ridiculous as many others on this forum have suggested as well. Of course you can express your opinion on this forum. However I can also disagree with you because frankly your conclusion has no merit.
I started hating 960 when I couldn't copy grandmasters for the first ten or so moves. (Just a joke, in case anyone takes it seriously)
Even the Chess960 world champions have very little positive to say about the game. They point out that it may make a difference to players below a certain level, but for masters, removing the opening "book" is not such a big deal.
Several GMs, including Peter Svidler (a former Chess960 world champion), have pointed out that there are positions in Chess960 that give an undue advantage to White.
I'll stick to Chess. I actually like being able to research specific openings, both in correspondence chess and in OTB tournaments!
Perhaps what they call a "rebranding" is in order for Chess960.
Has it not gone through several names in English in a short time?
It was Shuffle Chess, then Fischer Random Chess, then Fischer 960, then Chess 960.
"Chess 960" is the stupidest sounding of the lot. Why not call it something catchy such as "D Chess"?