3 ms·

Kramnik briefly addresses this question in the article: > Fischer Random is an interesting format, but it has its drawbacks. In particular, the nontraditional

by 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.

by schoen 7y ago

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.