4 ms·

Former world-ranked youth chess player here. 100% agree with the desire to reduce draws and get people out of opening theory. Not sure though why Kramnik felt t

Former world-ranked youth chess player here. 100% agree with the desire to reduce draws and get people out of opening theory. Not sure though why Kramnik felt the need to invent a new variant when Chess960 already exists, is thriving, and changes the game far more drastically than no-castling rule. The post reads more as an submarine advertisement for DeepMind (0) than a serious article for chess players. [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

schoen 7y ago
Kramnik briefly addresses this question in the article: > Fischer Random is an interesting format, but it has its drawbacks. In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game. (I have no idea if his view would be persuasive to you.)
- mindgam3 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't find these arguments particularly convincing. > In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. Actually the nontraditional start is part of what makes it fun. It's fresh and forces you to start using your brain from move one. I don't buy the claim that the main enjoyment of chess is due to familiar positions. > The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. I can't speak to Kramnik's private conversations, but as a serious player what I can say is that my competitive advantage over an amateur diminishes considerably in Chess960. Perhaps what Kramnik's friends are complaining about is the fact that it's harder for them to win at Chess960 than standard. > Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game. Yeah, there's a difference in aesthetics for sure. But who is to say that it is "worse"? Some piece configurations do feel a bit "ugly" but to me this is more than balanced out by the beauty of new patterns emerging where they weren't expected.
xkjkls 7y ago
He does briefly address this as complicated for beginners to enter (which is true). Given that no-castling actually makes the game simpler, its worthwhile to consider it as an alternative.
- mindgam3 7y ago
  Sure, if you're pitching this as "a simpler way to learn chess", I can get behind that. Anything to make chess accessible to more people is great in my book. But he's selling it as a way to save late-stage classical chess from the era of boring draws and endless opening theory. We already have a better solution for that in Chess960.
  - xkjkls 7y ago
    Part of any games popularity is to have an exciting competitive scene and also have easy entrance for new players. Chess960 solves one of those, no-castling seems like a better solution on both fronts.

schoen 7y ago

Kramnik briefly addresses this question in the article: > Fischer Random is an interesting format, but it has its drawbacks. In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game. (I have no idea if his view would be persuasive to you.)

mindgam3 7y ago
Yeah, I don't find these arguments particularly convincing. > In particular, the nontraditional starting positions make it difficult for many amateurs to enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved. Actually the nontraditional start is part of what makes it fun. It's fresh and forces you to start using your brain from move one. I don't buy the claim that the main enjoyment of chess is due to familiar positions. > The same is true for world-class players, as many have confessed to me privately. I can't speak to Kramnik's private conversations, but as a serious player what I can say is that my competitive advantage over an amateur diminishes considerably in Chess960. Perhaps what Kramnik's friends are complaining about is the fact that it's harder for them to win at Chess960 than standard. > Finally, it also seems to lack an aesthetic quality found in traditional chess, which makes it less appealing for both players and viewers, even if it does occasionally result in an exciting game. Yeah, there's a difference in aesthetics for sure. But who is to say that it is "worse"? Some piece configurations do feel a bit "ugly" but to me this is more than balanced out by the beauty of new patterns emerging where they weren't expected.

xkjkls 7y ago

He does briefly address this as complicated for beginners to enter (which is true). Given that no-castling actually makes the game simpler, its worthwhile to consider it as an alternative.

mindgam3 7y ago
Sure, if you're pitching this as "a simpler way to learn chess", I can get behind that. Anything to make chess accessible to more people is great in my book. But he's selling it as a way to save late-stage classical chess from the era of boring draws and endless opening theory. We already have a better solution for that in Chess960.
- xkjkls 7y ago
  Part of any games popularity is to have an exciting competitive scene and also have easy entrance for new players. Chess960 solves one of those, no-castling seems like a better solution on both fronts.