An argument for making chess960 the standard for chess

@Sarg0n said in #19:
> No. Reminder:
>
> lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/letter-to-the-editor-nic-concerning-chess960?page=1

Yeah, I'll just repost my refutation of your article:

"1. Just picking a new opening isn’t that easy. Usually, it’ll be dubious if it’s too off the wall or you’ll have to learn new theory. I’m a caro-kann player. Maybe it’d be fun to try the Sicilian, but there’s no way I’m gonna bother going down that theory rabbit hole.

2. You say people vote with their feet, but people really haven’t been given the option. Most people don’t know about Chess960, and they aren’t given the option to go to tournaments. If Chess960 had the same visibility and opportunity as the old chess, then we could see what people choose to play.

3. Besides theory, Chess960 offers the opportunity to play such fresh and new positions. By restraining yourself to the same position over and over again, you miss out on the diversity that the 959 other positions offer."

It's obvious that you're trying to come up with some ad hoc justification for sticking with the old chess. But if chess960 was the original, would you advocate that we should obsess over starting position 518? Probably not. Because it's not really SP 518 that you're defending. Rather, it's a quasi-religious obsession with tradition in spite of the obvious benefits of diversity. There's a reason chess has had so many rule changes over time. We're just living in a generation that is arrogant enough to believe chess has been perfected and refuse to innovate, even when computers are taking over. It's sad to see close-mindedness killing our game.

All players can play and organise chess960 tournaments. Online it's in a lower single-digit floor and offline probably ppm.

@Sarg0n said in #22:
> All players can play and organise chess960 tournaments. Online it's in a lower single-digit floor and offline probably ppm.

Sure, and there's a high profile FRC tournament being held in a couple months with top players, such as Magnus Carlsen, Fabiano Caruana, Ding Liren, and Levon Aronian.

www.chess.com/news/view/carlsen-ding-caruana-in-new-200-000-fischer-random-event

It's not as if these tournaments don't happen. Top players are generally on board with 960. The issue is trying to get average players on board.

Why might average players not be on board? Well, culturally, chess is very well-known and respected. 960 is new and doesn't have such a reputation yet. Additionally, change is scary to people. Especially people who are scared of leaving their opening prep behind.

Also, FIDE hasn't introduced ratings for 960 yet. Ratings would definitely help to legitimize 960 as players compete to get higher ratings.

But let's not conflate two questions:

1. Why isn't 960 as popular as chess yet? (Possible answers, it's less than 30 years old, not well-known, and no official ratings yet).

2. Which game is better, classical chess or chess960?

I think we should start with the second question. Because surely we agree that regardless of the answer to 1, we should want to promote 960 if it's the better game, right? So what are the reasons we should think SP 518 is the ultimate starting position such that we should ignore the other 959? If we started with 960, would you be arguing that we should stop playing the other 959 to obsess over SP 518?

You seem very concerned about what people are doing right now (while ignoring the obvious cultural and historical reasons for why chess is currently more popular), and you seem very disinterested in analyzing which game is actually better from a gameplay/mechanics standpoint. I see the latter as much more important. Wouldn't you agree?

Regarding the argument presented at the beginning, I find it worth taking into account. For Chess960 lovers, also Chess960 tournament organizers/directors like me, promoting this extension of the game, 959 additional starting positions, is a stimulating exercise because it allows us to study new situations from first moves; situations that could be resolved through optimal piece development, tactics, proper management of pawn structure, etc.

For 15 years some people have been yelling: "The end is near." ( = of regular chess in favour of chess960).

Remind the start of my letter:

I remember vividly when German organizer Hans-Walter Schmitt assisted by his friend, World champion Viswanathan Anand, promoted Bobby Fischer’s revolutionary idea vigorously 15 years ago. He founded an association, and the chess960 rules were included in the FIDE laws of chess. It was praised as “the chess of the future“. In this respect nothing spectacular has happened in the over-the-board world afterwards though, Random Chess remained a random occurrence. There were almost no tournaments, no clubs, no gossip. However, on online servers one can find a lower single-digit percentage floor amongst other random variants. Fresh attempts have been launched recently, even boosted by the current World champion including master clashes, publicity, and money. ...