Some say pineapple doesn't belong on pizza, others disagree!!! I think pizza can be enjoyed with and without pineapple. Chess is very much the same. Enjoy it however you like it! Such freedoms of choice are rare in this world! embrace that!
@sheckley666 said in #50:
> Funny. Most of the openings have got their names long before computers were thinkable. And now you are claiming, that these opening lines are helpful only because of the depth they nowadays have achieved with the help of computers.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What a strawman. When did I ever say that theory is only useful nowadays because of computers?
Computer analysis is required at high levels to innovate on opening theory, that's true. But I never said that theory pre-computers was useless. What I am claiming is that modern theory is being discovered by computers and humans are relegated to the role of computer memory machines at the highest levels.
And even if this wasn't the case, I think the diversity of positions and structures of chess960 is far better than the monotony of classical chess.
> You need not memorize the same depth for each of the 960 positions as you have today for SP 518.
> You only need more depth than your opponent.
This is such a silly idea. The game doesn't end after theory. Do you rally think a player that memorized the two best moves in a position is going to be much better than someone who didn't? Maybe that'd be the case if the game was over in two moves. But yeah, this is just horrible reasoning. Cope harder.
> Funny. Most of the openings have got their names long before computers were thinkable. And now you are claiming, that these opening lines are helpful only because of the depth they nowadays have achieved with the help of computers.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What a strawman. When did I ever say that theory is only useful nowadays because of computers?
Computer analysis is required at high levels to innovate on opening theory, that's true. But I never said that theory pre-computers was useless. What I am claiming is that modern theory is being discovered by computers and humans are relegated to the role of computer memory machines at the highest levels.
And even if this wasn't the case, I think the diversity of positions and structures of chess960 is far better than the monotony of classical chess.
> You need not memorize the same depth for each of the 960 positions as you have today for SP 518.
> You only need more depth than your opponent.
This is such a silly idea. The game doesn't end after theory. Do you rally think a player that memorized the two best moves in a position is going to be much better than someone who didn't? Maybe that'd be the case if the game was over in two moves. But yeah, this is just horrible reasoning. Cope harder.
An actually interesting discussion could be had on this topic, but sadly it was ruined by your immature, defensive attitude of namecalling, taking every counterpoint as a personal attack, and Internet arguing slang like "cope" and what not. What a shame.
@WanoBanano said in #53:
> An actually interesting discussion could be had on this topic, but sadly it was ruined by your immature, defensive attitude of namecalling, taking every counterpoint as a personal attack, and Internet arguing slang like "cope" and what not. What a shame.
I didn't namecall. Why make things up?
And yeah, it's clear people are coping when their arguments are absolute nonsense. Like am I supposed to take it seriously when someone says, "They can memorize the first two moves in 960 positions"?
That's obviously a very silly argument. That would be completely useless in a game.
Don't be triggered by the word "cope". That's actually very childish. And I'm not taking the arguments as personal attacks. I'm just offended by the clear dishonesty. It's clear they're just grasping at anything to defend the old chess, no matter how bad the argument is. That's not good faith conversation. And it does make me think they're coping because they can't defend the old chess.
> An actually interesting discussion could be had on this topic, but sadly it was ruined by your immature, defensive attitude of namecalling, taking every counterpoint as a personal attack, and Internet arguing slang like "cope" and what not. What a shame.
I didn't namecall. Why make things up?
And yeah, it's clear people are coping when their arguments are absolute nonsense. Like am I supposed to take it seriously when someone says, "They can memorize the first two moves in 960 positions"?
That's obviously a very silly argument. That would be completely useless in a game.
Don't be triggered by the word "cope". That's actually very childish. And I'm not taking the arguments as personal attacks. I'm just offended by the clear dishonesty. It's clear they're just grasping at anything to defend the old chess, no matter how bad the argument is. That's not good faith conversation. And it does make me think they're coping because they can't defend the old chess.
@WanoBanano said in #53:
> An actually interesting discussion could be had on this topic, but sadly it was ruined by your immature, defensive attitude of namecalling, taking every counterpoint as a personal attack, and Internet arguing slang like "cope" and what not. What a shame.
I disagree with you, I think OP has done well on the whole, to defend his position against a considerable number of combative posters, and managed it with what I would consider only minor defensive scars. For example, he has not name-called anyone (feel free to contradict me if something was edited out or you think I misunderstood something). This leaves you in the unfortunate position of potentially having made something up to justify having a rant at him. I do agree with you on the "Internet arguing slang" thing, but I would have to admit that that is a matter of personal taste, and this is the internet after all.
I don't play 960 and am looking up tips and tricks to see if I can learn how to, as I suspect I have a chance of being better, and enjoying more, playing against people on even opening experience.
> An actually interesting discussion could be had on this topic, but sadly it was ruined by your immature, defensive attitude of namecalling, taking every counterpoint as a personal attack, and Internet arguing slang like "cope" and what not. What a shame.
I disagree with you, I think OP has done well on the whole, to defend his position against a considerable number of combative posters, and managed it with what I would consider only minor defensive scars. For example, he has not name-called anyone (feel free to contradict me if something was edited out or you think I misunderstood something). This leaves you in the unfortunate position of potentially having made something up to justify having a rant at him. I do agree with you on the "Internet arguing slang" thing, but I would have to admit that that is a matter of personal taste, and this is the internet after all.
I don't play 960 and am looking up tips and tricks to see if I can learn how to, as I suspect I have a chance of being better, and enjoying more, playing against people on even opening experience.
@Nomoreusernames said in #55:
> I disagree with you, I think OP has done well on the whole, to defend his position against a considerable number of combative posters, and managed it with what I would consider only minor defensive scars. For example, he has not name-called anyone (feel free to contradict me if something was edited out or you think I misunderstood something). This leaves you in the unfortunate position of potentially having made something up to justify having a rant at him. I do agree with you on the "Internet arguing slang" thing, but I would have to admit that that is a matter of personal taste, and this is the internet after all.
>
> I don't play 960 and am looking up tips and tricks to see if I can learn how to, as I suspect I have a chance of being better, and enjoying more, playing against people on even opening experience.
It's always refreshing when someone actually follows along :)
> I disagree with you, I think OP has done well on the whole, to defend his position against a considerable number of combative posters, and managed it with what I would consider only minor defensive scars. For example, he has not name-called anyone (feel free to contradict me if something was edited out or you think I misunderstood something). This leaves you in the unfortunate position of potentially having made something up to justify having a rant at him. I do agree with you on the "Internet arguing slang" thing, but I would have to admit that that is a matter of personal taste, and this is the internet after all.
>
> I don't play 960 and am looking up tips and tricks to see if I can learn how to, as I suspect I have a chance of being better, and enjoying more, playing against people on even opening experience.
It's always refreshing when someone actually follows along :)
@Prophiscient said in #44:
> Why settle for "rich enough" when we can have 960 times as much richness?
Because it becomes overcomplex. There must be a balance.
> That's just not true. Even at my level, much of the opening is rote memorization. You know what to play and you play it simply because you remember the correct moves. It's that simple, even at the amateur level. It is true that the better you are, the more of a problem it becomes, but it's simply false that this is only an issue for GMs. Anyone who is somewhat decent at chess knows some theory.
When learning openings, one should strive to understand the ideas behind them and why certain moves are made, and not concrete lines. That way, you can easily play an opening well without having to memorise moves. I can only think of rare cases where this may not be true, such as some critical lines in perhaps the Sicilian Dragon where the above may not be enough. But even then, having a good understanding of the opening can aid you a lot.
> That's what opening theory is. It's just move memorization.
No. I've answered this above.
> The idea is that we want a game as much like chess that solves the problems of classical chess. 10x10 would be a drastic change. Same with most other variants. Chess960 is ideal because of how little it changes chess while being a very big fix.
I'm sure there are other variants that are balanced and as close to chess as chess960. But I guess this is not the root of the question.
> I don't agree here. No beginner is playing a "fairly good game" of chess by memorizing the moves of an opening. That's just nonsense. To play a fairly good game of chess requires some pretty good understanding. Theory is more of an issue at higher levels.
Well, of course, one has to be fairly well versed in strategy, tactics and endgame as well. But that really only supports my point - openings are not a big deal in amateur chess, most games are decided in the middlegame or endgame.
> Beginners will not do well in classical chess or chess960.
And yet they will play higher quality games in standard chess, since the starting position is more familiar and one does not have to worry about their overall development plan as much.
> This is nonsense. It is true that the benefit of chess960 will scale with the ability of the players, but let's not pretend you need to be a GM to benefit from chess960. Chess960 will benefit players of any level who have to deal with opening theory. And I know from experience that that includes players like me who are nowhere near GM (or even master) level.
I don't believe openings or engine preparation will play a large/decisive role in games below 2500. And learning them is not as hard as you make it out to be. For some, this might even be enjoyable!
> Why settle for "rich enough" when we can have 960 times as much richness?
Because it becomes overcomplex. There must be a balance.
> That's just not true. Even at my level, much of the opening is rote memorization. You know what to play and you play it simply because you remember the correct moves. It's that simple, even at the amateur level. It is true that the better you are, the more of a problem it becomes, but it's simply false that this is only an issue for GMs. Anyone who is somewhat decent at chess knows some theory.
When learning openings, one should strive to understand the ideas behind them and why certain moves are made, and not concrete lines. That way, you can easily play an opening well without having to memorise moves. I can only think of rare cases where this may not be true, such as some critical lines in perhaps the Sicilian Dragon where the above may not be enough. But even then, having a good understanding of the opening can aid you a lot.
> That's what opening theory is. It's just move memorization.
No. I've answered this above.
> The idea is that we want a game as much like chess that solves the problems of classical chess. 10x10 would be a drastic change. Same with most other variants. Chess960 is ideal because of how little it changes chess while being a very big fix.
I'm sure there are other variants that are balanced and as close to chess as chess960. But I guess this is not the root of the question.
> I don't agree here. No beginner is playing a "fairly good game" of chess by memorizing the moves of an opening. That's just nonsense. To play a fairly good game of chess requires some pretty good understanding. Theory is more of an issue at higher levels.
Well, of course, one has to be fairly well versed in strategy, tactics and endgame as well. But that really only supports my point - openings are not a big deal in amateur chess, most games are decided in the middlegame or endgame.
> Beginners will not do well in classical chess or chess960.
And yet they will play higher quality games in standard chess, since the starting position is more familiar and one does not have to worry about their overall development plan as much.
> This is nonsense. It is true that the benefit of chess960 will scale with the ability of the players, but let's not pretend you need to be a GM to benefit from chess960. Chess960 will benefit players of any level who have to deal with opening theory. And I know from experience that that includes players like me who are nowhere near GM (or even master) level.
I don't believe openings or engine preparation will play a large/decisive role in games below 2500. And learning them is not as hard as you make it out to be. For some, this might even be enjoyable!
@StateYourPoint said in #57:
> Because it becomes overcomplex. There must be a balance.
As someone who's played 960 and classical, I can tell you that 960 is not too complex. If you just think a little out of the opening, it's not that hard to develop and get a good position. The "it's too hard point" seems to get thrown around like it's obvious. In reality, it's just not true. It seems like players would rather be lazy and start from a middlegame by playing rote openings instead of actually playing the opening which is sad. The opening is a great part of chess that is dead in classical chess.
> When learning openings, one should strive to understand the ideas behind them and why certain moves are made, and not concrete lines. That way, you can easily play an opening well without having to memorise moves. I can only think of rare cases where this may not be true, such as some critical lines in perhaps the Sicilian Dragon where the above may not be enough. But even then, having a good understanding of the opening can aid you a lot.
This supports 960 over classical chess. Classical chess rewards rote memorization, because understanding is less important when you can literally just memorize the moves. Understanding is more important in 960 because you can't memorize the moves. Therefore, you must rely on your understanding rather than rote memorization. That is the whole point of 960 over classical.
> No. I've answered this above.
You answered it incorrectly. You seem to not understand what opening theory is. Opening theory is move memorization. Literally. That's all it is. You can say that it's beneficial to understand why certain moves are beneficial, but it's not necessary. If you simply remember the correct moves, you are playing with theory.
960 gets rid of rote openings and requires you to actually understand what to play. This is why it scares players who lack understanding and rely on rote memorization.
> I'm sure there are other variants that are balanced and as close to chess as chess960. But I guess this is not the root of the question.
What variants? I'd be curious to know of any genuine competitors to 960. As far as I can tell, 960 is in a class of its own. If there was a variant that was better than 960, I'd be interested in knowing about it and maybe promoting it instead. But I can't think of a variant that would be better than 960 when optimizing for 3 things:
1. A variant that eliminates or vastly minimizes opening theory.
2. A variant that maximizes or greatly increases positional/structural diversity.
3. A variant that maintains the flavor of the old chess as much as possible (similar mechanics such as movements of the pieces, castling, same board, same pieces, same objective, etc.)
If you could show me a variant that balances all of these 3 concerns better than 960 does, I'd love to hear it.
> Well, of course, one has to be fairly well versed in strategy, tactics and endgame as well. But that really only supports my point - openings are not a big deal in amateur chess, most games are decided in the middlegame or endgame.
Well, no. This doesn't support your point very much. Opening memorization isn't sufficient to play a good game, but it is definitely necessary. Even for a decent amateur player. I'd know because I'm a decent amateur player, and I know from experience it's very possible to lose out of the opening to another amateur who memorized certain openings.
And not only that, but even for unskilled players who aren't affected by opening theory would still benefit from increased positional/structural diversity that 960 offers.
> And yet they will play higher quality games in standard chess, since the starting position is more familiar and one does not have to worry about their overall development plan as much.
Sure, memorizing computer lines will allow you to play with a bit more accuracy. But my goal isn't to have people play with the highest amount of accuracy. It's to have people play a game where players rely on their own ideas and creativity. For that purpose, 960 is vastly superior to classical chess.
> I don't believe openings or engine preparation will play a large/decisive role in games below 2500. And learning them is not as hard as you make it out to be. For some, this might even be enjoyable!
What's your rating? Because no offense, but you're talking like someone who knows very little about chess. As a player who is nowhere close to 2500, I can tell you that even at my level, openings play a very big role. It's very possible (and even likely in some lines) to be at a very great disadvantage (or even outright losing) because a player memorized some openings.
It's a nasty myth that openings are only for GMs. It's completely false, and even a decent amateur could tell you that if he was being honest. Openings are an issue for even okayish amateurs. So I'm just curious what your rating/chess experience is based on the claims you've made so far.
And you're right that learning openings to some degree isn't that hard. But a few points here:
1. Players shouldn't have to spend time studying theory to be competitive. That is just a race to the bottom. Because if that is the standard, the best players will have to study a lot (which is already the case).
2. Chess shouldn't be about studying at all. Chess shouldn't be like a test that you study for. It should be like an IQ test that measures your raw ability. So you can sit down have fun working through positions rather than have the pressure of memorizing as many openings as you can.
3. This is not how chess was historically played. There was little to no opening theory until the mid 1800's. And even when there was theory, humans came up with all of the ideas through study. Nowadays, most novelties come from computer analysis. IMO, this is destroying chess as a respectable game. 960 is such a clear and elegant solution to this problem. It's only tradition, stubbornness, and fear that is preventing this innovation.
> Because it becomes overcomplex. There must be a balance.
As someone who's played 960 and classical, I can tell you that 960 is not too complex. If you just think a little out of the opening, it's not that hard to develop and get a good position. The "it's too hard point" seems to get thrown around like it's obvious. In reality, it's just not true. It seems like players would rather be lazy and start from a middlegame by playing rote openings instead of actually playing the opening which is sad. The opening is a great part of chess that is dead in classical chess.
> When learning openings, one should strive to understand the ideas behind them and why certain moves are made, and not concrete lines. That way, you can easily play an opening well without having to memorise moves. I can only think of rare cases where this may not be true, such as some critical lines in perhaps the Sicilian Dragon where the above may not be enough. But even then, having a good understanding of the opening can aid you a lot.
This supports 960 over classical chess. Classical chess rewards rote memorization, because understanding is less important when you can literally just memorize the moves. Understanding is more important in 960 because you can't memorize the moves. Therefore, you must rely on your understanding rather than rote memorization. That is the whole point of 960 over classical.
> No. I've answered this above.
You answered it incorrectly. You seem to not understand what opening theory is. Opening theory is move memorization. Literally. That's all it is. You can say that it's beneficial to understand why certain moves are beneficial, but it's not necessary. If you simply remember the correct moves, you are playing with theory.
960 gets rid of rote openings and requires you to actually understand what to play. This is why it scares players who lack understanding and rely on rote memorization.
> I'm sure there are other variants that are balanced and as close to chess as chess960. But I guess this is not the root of the question.
What variants? I'd be curious to know of any genuine competitors to 960. As far as I can tell, 960 is in a class of its own. If there was a variant that was better than 960, I'd be interested in knowing about it and maybe promoting it instead. But I can't think of a variant that would be better than 960 when optimizing for 3 things:
1. A variant that eliminates or vastly minimizes opening theory.
2. A variant that maximizes or greatly increases positional/structural diversity.
3. A variant that maintains the flavor of the old chess as much as possible (similar mechanics such as movements of the pieces, castling, same board, same pieces, same objective, etc.)
If you could show me a variant that balances all of these 3 concerns better than 960 does, I'd love to hear it.
> Well, of course, one has to be fairly well versed in strategy, tactics and endgame as well. But that really only supports my point - openings are not a big deal in amateur chess, most games are decided in the middlegame or endgame.
Well, no. This doesn't support your point very much. Opening memorization isn't sufficient to play a good game, but it is definitely necessary. Even for a decent amateur player. I'd know because I'm a decent amateur player, and I know from experience it's very possible to lose out of the opening to another amateur who memorized certain openings.
And not only that, but even for unskilled players who aren't affected by opening theory would still benefit from increased positional/structural diversity that 960 offers.
> And yet they will play higher quality games in standard chess, since the starting position is more familiar and one does not have to worry about their overall development plan as much.
Sure, memorizing computer lines will allow you to play with a bit more accuracy. But my goal isn't to have people play with the highest amount of accuracy. It's to have people play a game where players rely on their own ideas and creativity. For that purpose, 960 is vastly superior to classical chess.
> I don't believe openings or engine preparation will play a large/decisive role in games below 2500. And learning them is not as hard as you make it out to be. For some, this might even be enjoyable!
What's your rating? Because no offense, but you're talking like someone who knows very little about chess. As a player who is nowhere close to 2500, I can tell you that even at my level, openings play a very big role. It's very possible (and even likely in some lines) to be at a very great disadvantage (or even outright losing) because a player memorized some openings.
It's a nasty myth that openings are only for GMs. It's completely false, and even a decent amateur could tell you that if he was being honest. Openings are an issue for even okayish amateurs. So I'm just curious what your rating/chess experience is based on the claims you've made so far.
And you're right that learning openings to some degree isn't that hard. But a few points here:
1. Players shouldn't have to spend time studying theory to be competitive. That is just a race to the bottom. Because if that is the standard, the best players will have to study a lot (which is already the case).
2. Chess shouldn't be about studying at all. Chess shouldn't be like a test that you study for. It should be like an IQ test that measures your raw ability. So you can sit down have fun working through positions rather than have the pressure of memorizing as many openings as you can.
3. This is not how chess was historically played. There was little to no opening theory until the mid 1800's. And even when there was theory, humans came up with all of the ideas through study. Nowadays, most novelties come from computer analysis. IMO, this is destroying chess as a respectable game. 960 is such a clear and elegant solution to this problem. It's only tradition, stubbornness, and fear that is preventing this innovation.
@Prophiscient said in #47:
> 3. Chess960 has obviously not failed. It's less than 30 years old and is already the most popular variant of chess. It's played in high level tournaments often (one is even coming up which features Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, Ding Liren, Alireza
It has failed as after 30 years there are still few tournaments like the tournaments. You have seem to be from Israel. I checked Israel chess federation forth coming tournament and did not see single 960. Finnish association has one per year. So how could something that is not interesting to people replace anything.
Dunno how measure how popular variations are but sure in lichess it with small margin most popular. about 9k weekly players, antichess has 8k, as atomic has 8k. So it is not even dominating that scene. Letalone when you compare to 700k weekly player for blitz chess it clearly not about to break trough here. Has its audience but that is very small.
> 3. Chess960 has obviously not failed. It's less than 30 years old and is already the most popular variant of chess. It's played in high level tournaments often (one is even coming up which features Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, Ding Liren, Alireza
It has failed as after 30 years there are still few tournaments like the tournaments. You have seem to be from Israel. I checked Israel chess federation forth coming tournament and did not see single 960. Finnish association has one per year. So how could something that is not interesting to people replace anything.
Dunno how measure how popular variations are but sure in lichess it with small margin most popular. about 9k weekly players, antichess has 8k, as atomic has 8k. So it is not even dominating that scene. Letalone when you compare to 700k weekly player for blitz chess it clearly not about to break trough here. Has its audience but that is very small.
@petri999 said in #59:
> It has failed as after 30 years there are still few tournaments like the tournaments.
I wouldn't say it has failed. That's obviously a biased (or at least pessimistic) perspective. More fairly, we can say it is in its infancy, and we have yet to see how far it will get. It's already in the FIDE laws of chess. It's already the most popular variant. There are still big tournaments with top players being held. Top players are still expressing positive attitudes towards 960, expressing sentiments that it is "the future" of chess. And we still have to see how adding official 960 FIDE ratings will affect the landscape.
So has it failed? It's hard to say when it has just gotten started. Do you really expect chess960 to overtake chess the minute it was created? What are your standards for success?
> You have seem to be from Israel.
I'm not from Israel. I changed my flag to the Israeli flag in solidarity with Israel after the horrific terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas on Oct 7.
> I checked Israel chess federation forth coming tournament and did not see single 960. Finnish association has one per year. So how could something that is not interesting to people replace anything.
This is just stupid reasoning. Firstly, Israel is a very small country so it's a bad place to look for 960 tournaments when 960 is in its infancy. Secondly, to conclude that there is little interest in 960 is beyond stupid. Most people don't even know about it! Some things take time to grow in popularity. Van Gogh wasn't recognized as a great artist in his time. But calling him a failure during his life would've been your own premature and arrogant perspective. It took time for people to see his genius. It could very well be the case that 960 will also grow with time and exposure.
960 is going up against one of the most well established games of all time. It is not being promoted well, and it is unknown by the masses. To say that it is "not interesting to people," when people haven't been exposed to it is stupid at best and dishonest at worst.
> Dunno how measure how popular variations are but sure in lichess it with small margin most popular. about 9k weekly players, antichess has 8k, as atomic has 8k. So it is not even dominating that scene. Letalone when you compare to 700k weekly player for blitz chess it clearly not about to break trough here. Has its audience but that is very small.
Sure, when you compare the players of 960 to blitz (the game with the most players) it will look small. But again, it is the biggest and most well-accepted variant of chess. What it really needs is to be more well-known and to have ratings officially established. People also need to be given the pitch for 960. I doubt the average person knows that the highest levels of chess are dominated with computer memorization and that even at the amateur level, people are memorizing moves instead of playing based on outwitting their opponents in game.
I think if most people understood the reasons that 960 was created (to minimize opening prep, increase diversity of positions, and maintain the game with the old chess flavor as much as possible), I think most people would be on board with it. Unfortunately, most people haven't been given this pitch nearly enough. And that's why most people don't currently support 960.
IMO, the current state of classical chess is an absolute embarrassment to our game, and 960 is the best hope we have to making chess respectable again. No more computer dominance in chess. Enough is enough.
> It has failed as after 30 years there are still few tournaments like the tournaments.
I wouldn't say it has failed. That's obviously a biased (or at least pessimistic) perspective. More fairly, we can say it is in its infancy, and we have yet to see how far it will get. It's already in the FIDE laws of chess. It's already the most popular variant. There are still big tournaments with top players being held. Top players are still expressing positive attitudes towards 960, expressing sentiments that it is "the future" of chess. And we still have to see how adding official 960 FIDE ratings will affect the landscape.
So has it failed? It's hard to say when it has just gotten started. Do you really expect chess960 to overtake chess the minute it was created? What are your standards for success?
> You have seem to be from Israel.
I'm not from Israel. I changed my flag to the Israeli flag in solidarity with Israel after the horrific terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas on Oct 7.
> I checked Israel chess federation forth coming tournament and did not see single 960. Finnish association has one per year. So how could something that is not interesting to people replace anything.
This is just stupid reasoning. Firstly, Israel is a very small country so it's a bad place to look for 960 tournaments when 960 is in its infancy. Secondly, to conclude that there is little interest in 960 is beyond stupid. Most people don't even know about it! Some things take time to grow in popularity. Van Gogh wasn't recognized as a great artist in his time. But calling him a failure during his life would've been your own premature and arrogant perspective. It took time for people to see his genius. It could very well be the case that 960 will also grow with time and exposure.
960 is going up against one of the most well established games of all time. It is not being promoted well, and it is unknown by the masses. To say that it is "not interesting to people," when people haven't been exposed to it is stupid at best and dishonest at worst.
> Dunno how measure how popular variations are but sure in lichess it with small margin most popular. about 9k weekly players, antichess has 8k, as atomic has 8k. So it is not even dominating that scene. Letalone when you compare to 700k weekly player for blitz chess it clearly not about to break trough here. Has its audience but that is very small.
Sure, when you compare the players of 960 to blitz (the game with the most players) it will look small. But again, it is the biggest and most well-accepted variant of chess. What it really needs is to be more well-known and to have ratings officially established. People also need to be given the pitch for 960. I doubt the average person knows that the highest levels of chess are dominated with computer memorization and that even at the amateur level, people are memorizing moves instead of playing based on outwitting their opponents in game.
I think if most people understood the reasons that 960 was created (to minimize opening prep, increase diversity of positions, and maintain the game with the old chess flavor as much as possible), I think most people would be on board with it. Unfortunately, most people haven't been given this pitch nearly enough. And that's why most people don't currently support 960.
IMO, the current state of classical chess is an absolute embarrassment to our game, and 960 is the best hope we have to making chess respectable again. No more computer dominance in chess. Enough is enough.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.