The bad thing about chess is its fixed starting position.

I think that the bad thing about chess is its fixed starting position. Thus lead to the problem that many chess players talked about (starting from Fischer): the massive opening preparation. I think that, without a fixed starting position, it would be totally different. More creativity, less opening memorization and more tactics and strategy. I think that Fischer was right when he proposed his variant. Unfortunately, his variant isn't so popular. I don't know how engines work, but is my opinion that chess engines' strenght, without an opening book, would dramatically decrease. What do you think?

Once you go out of opening lines, Houdini is still dominating. The ability for computers to calculate is far superior.

You can try chess960 (aka FischerRandom) to get rid of this problem.

I'm thinking that engines would still be better because they can make calculations at light speed and can't be psychologically broken when things go wrong like people sometimes do.  I do think though that 960 can level the playing field somewhat for people like me who rely more on seeing the board and playing accordingly, and who doesn't like chess so much that he would be need to be willing to memorize lots of lines of opening theory if he wanted to play at a higher level.

But the fact of the matter is that the consistent starting position and study of openings is just too entrenched in chess history and culture that it would be very hard, if not impossible to eliminate it.  I think that there are far more people who enjoy it then there are people like you (or even me) that thinks it makes the game kind of goofy.  And at the end of day, chess is just a game, as long as the people playing think it is fun then it's just fine.

It's only that fixed position you lament that allows us to reliably appreciate the beauty of the London, the Colle, or the Grob over and over again.

Engines like Houdini and Stockfish have an "UCI_Chess960"-option.

Feel free and try to beat them in it. I'd say the human would suffer even more from being out of the book from move 1 on.

Okay... forget about Stockfish, he just Kb1xh1 his own rook because he doesn't understand how long castling is supposed to work in Chess960. :D The GUI disqualified him for making an illegal move. (Start was RKQBNNBR)

Agree about static opening position.  However, computers will still kick our butts.

Would you rather white win by force?  I like the starting position though want to play 960 but am afraid to. 

Study the openings of Jens Ove Fries Nielsen. This game can be found in MegaBase.

You really should give it a try.  It's a different type of thinking for the first few moves, but pretty much the same game after that.  And maybe it's just me, but I've even noticed myself improving some in standard position chess after playing some 960.

I bet that line works on all the ladies.

Xilmi System Destroying Stockfish!

Eventually quantum computers will solve chess in its present fixed position or in any starting position. Checkers has been solved to a draw by computers of the present. These same present computers have solved many problems that in the past were either unsolvable or solved incorrectly. An example is the endgame K+2B vs. K+N. For 300 years this endgame was thought to be a draw. Computers have analyzed this endgame a forced win for the K+2B. An outline of the winning method is as follows:

1.Forced removal of K+N from KH type position. A position discovered by a couple of endgame analysts Kling and Horowitz.

2.The Bs can by reflecting off of the edges of the board can gain tempii in order to prevent the K+N from setting up a another KH type position or a pseudo KH type position on another part of the board. This GAINIING OF TEMPII BY THE BS BY REFLECTING OFF THE EDGES OF THE BOARD WAS THE BIG SURPRISE FOR HUMAN ANALYSTS AND THE KEY REVELATION FROM THE COMPUTERS THAT MADE THE FORCED WIN POSSIBLE.

3.With the K+N unable to reset the KH type position or the pseudo KH type position; it becomes possible to separate the K and N. Then it becomes possible to mate the lone K or trap the N on the edge of the Board. Once the capture of the trapped N is accomplished the position is now the well known forced mate of K+2B vs. K.

You mean like this?  It'd be nuts trying to find the solution OTB:

And besides that it is a 200 move forced win. That puts the win beyond the 50 move rule.

ummm what fischer was complaining about in regards to opening preparation is something that no one under 2750 has any right bringing up in discussions about chess. not kidding. it has no bearing on you and your chess unless you are top 50 in the world (unless some extremely extenuating circumstances/conditions are present which cause opening preparations to be of some kind of issue in some way. highly unlikely under normal conditions).

No, it's not.

The beauty of chess is its fixed starting position. It allows for strength, solidity, and with accurate play, a balance of power. This is why much theory strives for an imbalance, which often gives both sides possibilities.

When I was young and not well schooled in chess, I thought opening theory would render the game dry and dull. I thought it unsporting to use someone else's ideas. I felt all games should be original from the earliest stages.

Then, at some point, I read a chess book which suggested a few openings for relative beginners, and I saw how, by NOT trying to re-invent the wheel every time, the game was somehow better. With a little knowledge, the opening principles were more comprehensible. Faced with something new, better decisions were at least possible. It was easier to win against the average player, and easier to learn more.

Now that I am older, and arguably still not well schooled in chess, I have an appreciation for theory. It is like having a wealth of great literature available. Why throw away Shakespeare just because the plays have been done before, or other great works just because somebody else wrote them?

For most players, memorization of multiple lines is difficult, and can be counterproductive. Understanding of those lines, even an incomplete understanding, can often aid strategy and tactics. Why discard them?

Thinking chess can be improved by change is the height of hubris. I suggest that, before you look for improved variants of chess, you first become world champion for a couple of decades, beating all comers. Then, something more challenging may be called for. Lesser mortals seeking change are perhaps looking for the easy way (and, I submit, the less satisfying way) out.

Zinsch wrote:

Yaroslavl wrote:

And besides that it is a 200 move forced win. That puts the win beyond the 50 move rule.

No, it's not.

_________________________________________

You are right, but the longest win with optimal moves by machines is 66 moves. Can you imagine 2 human players who do not always find and/or make optimal moves. I can see where this forced win would take considerably many more moves.

I agree with Bur_Oak.  At least for us non-pros, it's a big benefit for a fixed starting position.  We and our opponents don't do endless opening research anyway.  What we get is a richer game.  The fixed starting position isn't only about opening, it's about middlegames too.  If you randomize even that then there's less depth and it becomes more tactical and less strategic.

I don't think chess 960 will ever be very popular.  I think what they could do is pick maybe half a dozen solid starting configurations or something like this.