Talk:Fischer random chess

message: "Randomizing the main pieces had long been known as Shuffle Chess, but Chess960 introduced new rules that preserve full castling options in all starting positions" was changed to "Randomizing the main pieces has been known as Shuffle Chess. Chess960 introduced new rules that include castling options in all starting positions, resulting in 960 unique positions".
 
Several problems with those changes:
#"Has been known as" suggests that it is no longer known as. That is incorrect.
#"new rules that include castling options" suggests multiple new rules and that castling options is one of them (a new rule). That is misconstrued. (The introduction of king between rooks, preserved the existing rule for castling, it didn't create a new rule named "castling".) 
#"castling options in all starting positions" (removing "full") leaves open that some starting positions might offer only one castling option, not two (a-side and h-side).   
#"... known as Shuffle Chess. Chess960 introduced new rules ..." breaks the tie between Shuffle Chess and Chess960.
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. But I think this article needs copy-edit because of the prose. Any suggestions? If yes then please post here. If you can't help, please let me improve the article. If you know so much about English why don't you improve the article? Forgot to put name (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we agree. What part of the prose do you find deficient? (Not saying it's not, just need to be specific.) Re my willingness to help improve the article: huh? (Did u take a peek at my edit history on it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already told in the lead that all its rules, pieces etc are similar to standard chess then it's obvious that Chess960 includes castling options. Where as of the bishops being placed on opposite sides squares, It is already mentioned in Rules. Forgot to put name (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your bold removal of content, and am going to revert it. The lead is a summary of the body, and the key components of Chess960 (there are only three) are bishops on opposite colors, king between rooks, and the fact that castling options are preserved. To state these key components are "irrelevant" to the character, notability, and nature of Chess960, or otherwise "assumed", is, IMO, plain wrong. You will need a consensus of editors for your bold deletion, you currently don't have that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am redoing my edit because BRD is a essay and you did not specify reason for reverting my edits clearly. I have kept the key points in the lead too that the bishops start on opposite sides and whereas for the castling, it's assumed that castling options are preserved because already mentioned in lead that Chess960 includes rules of standard chess and castling is a rule of standard chess. I have added the fact that Chess960 includes castling options too. If you too agree with the change let's end the discussion here. Thanks Forgot to put name (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to engage in edit warring with you. (You ignore WP:BRD, "because BRD is an essay"??) You've removed mention of Shuffle Chess from the lead. This is inconsistent with WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" - the mention of Shuffle Chess was part of establishing context for Chess960. Explaining the three simple components of Chess960 mentioned above, was part of summarizing the most important points, and you have removed two of those points (king between rooks, preservation of classic chess full castling options in all start positions). The third important point, you have ruined, by changing "bishops on opposite-color squares", to "bishops on opposite squares". (Which has damaged the text, by making it incorrect and confusing. This also suggests to me that you are not a chessplayer much, since chessplayers understand bishops on opposite-colored squares, and would never say or write "bishops on opposite squares".) I am giving up negotiating with you, because you do not ascribe to collaboration re WP strong guidelines like discussion & consensus, instead preferring to force your way with reverts and mischaracterizing my attempts to explain the defects of your changes as non-explanations. Regarding your objection to the word "maintain" in sentence about maintaining the character of classic chess, you are completely wrong. (The first two definitions of the word from my American Heritage Dictionary: "1. To carry on; continue. 2. To preserve or retain." So the word "maintain" was a perfectly satisfactory choice, by the editor who introduced it. And you are simply wrong by saying it is not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead text re Shuffle 

message: I've put in an edit request to the {{tl|N/A}] to wikilink to the wiktionary definition in case readers don't know what it means. NE Ent 13:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! Forgot to put name 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't really care one way or another on this, but would like to register my logic about it. The idea of wlink'ing the N/A cell entries is clever, but, with 6 defs at the Wiktionary, I'm not sure how much benefit to readers it would be. Also, "not available" is different meaning than "not applicable", and, I'm not sure which applies to the empty cells (perhaps they are all "not applicable", but, I don't know for sure w/o researching). I have no problem with the ambiguity of N/A, only because, the previous cell fill, "-", was ambiguous as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it needs a link to be understood, it should be explained instead in the article.  Normally I'd say a caption could be used, but the cells in that table are very wide so there's no reason to use an abbreviation.  If those championships were not held, the cells should say something like "no contest held" instead of N/A.  Quale (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you. Let's see Ihardlythinkso agrees or no. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

text: It is one of the reasons I had opposed replacing "-" by "N/A". (Because "N/A" carries meaning; "-" does not.) I'm not sure what the facts are regarding those events, the research is doable but isn't also a triviality. I know incorrect info can be later corrected no big deal, but I for one am uncomfortable laying down info that might be misleading. My guess is "not applicable" (no tournament held) applies in all cases, but my guess is worth less than a cup of coffee here. (The conflict that erupted out of rush to fill the cells, put me out of mood for any research to confirm. Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If no championship, Woman Chess960 Championship or computer championship was held in that year then obviously that cell is not applicable. However, as you have mentioned, the research on the championships is doable. If that's misleading, then let's replace the table cells with  for now. Whenever we unveil new information, let's remove the N/A from the table and fill it with the necessary information. This source may be helpful for World Chess 960 championships (Don't know whether it's reliable or not, maybe useful, found by searching in Google. You are more experienced than me, you can decide whether it is or no). World Chess 960 Championships columns and rows are replaceable but the Women Chess 960 Championship and Computer chess 960 columns probably cannot be replaced (Probably can be replaced, but will have to do another research for the same).  — Forgot to put name (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ihardlythinkso is right.  If we don't know whether a contest was held or not, then N/A is absolutely not appropriate and in fact misleading and incorrect.  The appropriate treatment would be to either leave those cells blank or perhaps use ? to indicate that we haven't determined the facts.  "Not available" would also not be correct because we haven't determined that the results are not available.  We don't know the truth, so although the results are perhaps not known to us presently we haven't determined that they are not available in a global sense.  n/a is wrong for this use.  In addition to all this, in my experience "n/a" most often is used to indicate "not applicable" rather than "not available", and although neither of these meanings is correct for this situation the first meaning is an even worse fit than the second. Quale (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. And my pref would be blank cells. (As an aside, the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed. gives "not applicable" as the sole def; "not available" isn't given.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Just as an aside: I think I originally put that table there in 2009, and as far as I could determine it was complete. Also, the German wikipedia has an article dedicated to the WC chess 960 and seems to agree there (which is good news, as I would imagine they have access to better sources, since these tournaments were played in Mainz).  --Voorlandt (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to go with German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia too says that no championship was held in 2002. So I think N/A would be most appropriate even if its sole definition is not applicable. I forgot a point, the Oxford English Dictionary (One of the most reliable dictionaries) gives Not applicable and Not available as the definition. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a good idea: another wiki does not satisfy WP:RS (what if they were copying this article!?), and it is obvious that all this discussion over "n/a" means those letters are no help to a reader. If there is no good reason to believe we know the status of a particular entry, it would be better to omit any label. Even using "unknown" is problematic because that would suggest to a reader that no one knows the status (not just that the current editors have no idea). If the row in the table must be kept, a blank entry seems the only sensible procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, consensus appears to say that the table rows should be left blank. So I would prefer to go with consensus. — Forgot to put name (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  n/a 

message: "An initial position of kings and rooks where a Queen-side castle for White and a King-side castle for Black will do nothing." Looks like that black king-side statement is not right. I guess it must be 5rkr for the eight rank instead of 1rkr4 as it is now for king-side castle to do nothing. I'll edit it like this now, hope it is correct. Ketorin (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the whole example board got deleted, ok maybe better so. Ketorin (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, I added it because chess.com has the error (i.e., in any game with that specific position, with a castle, the player will have 2 rooks on the same file), so I hoped that it would somehow help future people reading it (especially those writing software).  It's fine that you removed it, but I think it's important for people to know (as it's an odd situation that arises during setup).  I don't think my initial diagram was incorrect.  It was meant to account for when a white or black castle will essentially do nothing (instead of erroneously putting 2 rooks on the same file). Esotericpig (talk) 06:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ketorin didn't remove it, I did. The artcle shouldn't contain text based on some esoteric s/w bug on some website (Chess.com). And the text "when a White or Black castle will essentially do nothing" was misleading since it is mistaken (all Chess960 castles "do something"). Ok, IHTS (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine.  However, from the Wikipedia text, "In some starting positions, the king or rook (but not both) do not move during castling."  Technically, it is a move, but also technically, nothing is done.  It's essentially a null move.  See how you didn't even know that there was a null move?  A lot of people don't, and I just wanted to clarify it some more, just trying to help readers. Esotericpig (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, that's the wrong quote.  In fact, I can't find the original quote anymore as it has been removed (I'm sure in history & old edits).  Anyway, it will be simpler to display, so I provided the original diagram below.  "After a-side castling, the king finishes on the c-file (c1 for White, c8 for Black) and the a-side rook finishes on the d-file (d1 for White, d8 for Black). The move is notated 0-0-0 and is known as queenside castling in standard chess."  In the below diagram, an a-side castle for white will move king on c1 to c1 and rook b1 on d1?  No, this is a special case in which it will be notated as a move, but nothing will be done.  b1 rook will not also be on d1 with the other rook.  Like I said, it's technically a "move" but also technically does nothing.  A null move.  A special case in Chess960. Esotericpig (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's no such thing as "null move" in 960. (In the diag you coded here, 0-0-0 is simply an impossible [illegal] move. It's not possible because d1 isn't vacant to relocate rook on b1 to d1. If you read the 960 rules again, you'll find it here: "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook.") Ok, IHTS (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see this link (http://www.mark-weeks.com/cfaa/chess960/c960strt.htm).  Look at 946 (BRKRNBNQ) and 947 (BRKRNNQB) with XRKR!  It's a completely valid starting position in Chess960!  If not, then it should be Chess958!  Vacancy rule deals with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone.  However, in the diagram below, it's assumed other pieces have left, except for the R and K.  In 946 and 947, the castle would not do anything!  This is why I added it to the wikipedia page because people are unaware of this. Esotericpig (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you're mistaken. In 946 & 947, with all pieces gone except K & Rs, White cannot play 0-0-0, since d1 is occupied. (After the d1-R moves, then 0-0-0 is possible. When you say 0-0-0 "would not do anything", that's wrong, 0-0-0 causes the b1-R to go to d1. And that is "doing something".) Did you read the rules text I copied above? That text contradicts your "Vacancy rule deals [only] with such things as RNBK where the N and B need to be gone." (For RNBKxxxx, yes, N & B need to be gone. But for xRKxxxxx, the d1-square must be vacant.) IHTS (talk) 07:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  (This might help you ...) The rules text says "all squares between the rook's initial and final squares (including the final square), must be vacant except for the king and castling rook." OK, here is a starting pos where the R's final square is "vacant except for the king": xRxKxxxx (where x = vacant square). And here is one where the R's final square is "vacant except for the castling rook": xxxRKxxx. The rules text quoted above is precise, but maybe not concise--perhaps its wordiness has confused you. (I didn't write that text, but it is precise.) IHTS (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, that makes sense, but doesn't it go against the original way Fischer wanted to modify Chess960?  In original Chess, I have the option to either castle king-side or queen-side when there are only Rooks and King on the back rank.  But now, if I have this start position of 946 or 947, I have to move a rook.  Are there official rules out there by FIDE or USCF that explain what to do here?  If we are to be faithful to the original Chess setup, then castling must be allowed either way I would think.  Instead, we now have to move a rook away in order to castle queen-side, and it's only for roughly 2 (maybe more?) initial setups.  I think what you said should be explained in a new subsection of the castling rules.  Like, in original chess, I have people argue about En Passant, and I have an official place I can point to and tell them that En Passant is a real move.  Now if 946 or 947 arise, they may either try to do a null move, or they may force me to move a rook (if a null move is allowed).  This seems like either a flaw or something that should be outlined in the rules specifically.  If it is the case where the rook must move first, then I think a new subsection should be added to explain this. :)  Esotericpig (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad you understand this now, but you seem to still have some hang-up, and I don't really understand what it is (or why a subsec w/ be required). (Castling *is* permitted either KS or QS in 960. It is just that for 0-0-0, the K does not move in RxKxxxxx and xRKxxxxx setups. And for 0-0, the K does not move in xxxxxxKR setups. But they are still considered castling moves in 960, 0-0-0 and 0-0.)Like the article says, the 960 rules are specified in the FIDE rules appendix.To repeat, I don't see any outstanding issues (with exception perhaps the rules text could be made more concise to avoid misunderstandings like you had), and don't understand your hang-up. (Fischer's castling rules were simply designed: the K is always between the Rs; the castle end-positions are identical to standard chess; and no intervening or ending squares can be occupied, except by the K and castling R. Simple.)In an earlier version of the article castling sec, there was some referenced text on "tips", including "move only the rook" in the setups we've been talking about here. Well, that subsec (tips) was removed (on March 1 by Ketorin , please read these "tips"). Perhaps that is what you are alluding to, for clearer understanding, of when castling involves moving only the R. (I dunno. But if so, perhaps those tips s/b restored to the article, or the ones that apply anyway, to satisfy what you're driving at!?) IHTS (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

text:  (You're welcome!) IHTS (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Castling rules 

message: I am removing the section "Playing online" because it is not encyclopedic and is obsolete since such information should be condensed and presented in the External Links section. Unihedro (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Playing online 

message: Under History>Mainz Championships are two confusing things to me and would prefer someone brighter than me correct them (if correction is needed).
1. "Note: None of these championships not recognized by FIDE."  Double-negative?  Really?  If all of the championships are recognized by FIDE then simply say, "All of these championships are recognized by FIDE."  If none are, it should be corrected to something like, "None of these championships are recognized by FIDE."
2. In the subsec that begins 2006, this appears, "Étienne Bacrot won the Chess960 open tournament, earning him a title match against Aronian in 2007."  But in the following subsec (year 2007) Aronian defends against Anand with no explanation as to what happen to the previously mentioned title defense—what happened to the Aronian-Bacrot championship game?
Musix4me (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chess960. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725031043/http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Peter-Leko-Biography.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/Peter-Leko-Biography.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321024225/http://chess960.net/castling-in-chess480 to http://chess960.net/castling-in-chess480
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122180126/http://www.bobby-fischer.net:80/bobby_fischer_sound_12.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_sound_12.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Versus removal based on "not encyclopedic" , I feel the sec conveys value to the article seeing that Fischer's proposed modification to chess is radical and there are differing views from grandmasters on it. The sec obviously doesn't attempt to be comprehensive re views but rather show there are differing opinions, and present a balanced representation of them (including a more extensive justification/explanation from Fischer). Perhaps an intro sentence could/should be added to put the sec into this context, I dunno. --IHTS (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandmaster quotes sec   

message: Article states, "For example, in some Fischer random chess starting positions White can attack an unprotected black pawn on the first move, whereas in standard chess it takes two moves for White to attack, . . . ." How can it be true to say, "WHITE CAN ATTACK AN UNPROTECTED PAWN ON THE FIRST MOVE"?  Since all the pieces besides pawns are in the first row and blocked by pawns from moving (except the knights which can jump over pawns), how can white attack anything on first move? Knights can't reach blacks side on first move.  A pawn might be advanced on first move allowing white to move out a bishop or queen to attack on 2nd move, but I can't see how 1st move attack would be possible.  (PeacePeace (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving a pawn may open a line, discovering an attack by a queen or bishop. This is in fact a problem that imbalances some starting positions and enables White to force opening play. (So, basically a special case of what Kramnik is quoted as saying in the article. Which is also why I sometimes think it would have been better to promote Capablanca chess as an extension of chess rather than this, but that's just my opinion.) Double sharp (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this statement correct in the article? 

message: I believe that the term Chess 9LX is not synonymous with the gamemode as a whole, but rather an explicit reference to the specific Saint Louis Chess Club event (which, incidentally, is being held at the time of writing.) A citation can be seen here: 2019 Champions Showdown: Chess 9LX. The page states: "Chess 9LX is a trademark of the Saint Louis Chess Club, and the name of one of its annual tournaments." This appears to refute the idea that "Chess 9LX" is a fundamental - or widely used - synonym for Fischer random. Unless anyone has objections to this, I will be removing the content that suggests the opposite.
(I was personally convinced that Chess 9LX was a synonym myself, for example as seen here, "The leader of Armenian chess, Levon Aronian, competed with the American Wesley So in the third round of the Chess 9LX—which is another term for Chess 960 or Fischer Random— tournament..." I understand the confusion, in light of that... but I believe I am right in this.)
Kiril kovachev (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: can be under the naming section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Naming Thewriter006 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chess 9LX" — just a trademark 

message: Shall we mention the results of the Chess 9LX of St Louis for the past, what, 4 tournaments now? Thewriter006 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Added now. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  9LX (St Louis) results 

message: If we do talk about the 9LX results of St Louis, then I think they'd be under 'History'. However the name '9LX' comes in 'naming' which is after 'history' soooo...? Thewriter006 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Did. Lemme know what you think. Thewriter006 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  9LX results vs 9LX name - Should 'naming' be moved up, probably before 'history' ? 

message: * "Teach people to play new chess, right away. Why do you offer them a black and white television set, when there is a set in color?" —Fischer,Gligorić (2002), p. 71. in the only meeting with FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, responding to the latter advocating "step by step" changes mindful of the heritage of chess
* "I don't know when, but I think we are approaching that [the end of chess] very rapidly. I think we need a change in the rules of chess. For example, I think it would be a good idea to shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory ... I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement, and also just for humans. It is much better, I think, because chess is becoming more and more simply memorization, because the power of memorization is so tremendous in chess now. Theory is so advanced, it used to be theory to maybe 10 or 15 moves, 18 moves; now, theory is going to 30 moves, 40 moves. I think I saw one game in Informator, the Yugoslav chess publication, where they give an N [theoretical novelty] to a new move, and I recall this new move was around move 50. ... I think it is true, we are coming to the end of the history of chess with the present rules, but I don't say we have to do away with the present rules. I mean, people can still play, but I think it's time for those who want to start playing on new rules that I think are better." —Fischer (September 1, 1992)
* "I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10×8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today." —Fischer, Radio Interview, June 27, 1999 (see 2:18–3:03)  (also see here 39:04–39:49) 
Option 2: Summarized within the rest of the article.
Option 3: Summarized within a reception section (with a different name or as "views of grandmasters").
Option 4: They should not be presented. 
Option 5: Rearranged under sections to distinguish what exactly their views are eg 'It is/is maybe/isn't the future' vs 'I dis/like 9LX' vs 'I like 9LX more than chess', etc. (proposed by )
— Ixtal ( T / C )  ⁂  Non nobis solum.  08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Fischer

message: Your initial complaint was re the number of quotes , but reducing the number isn't represented in any of the options you've crafted. --IHTS (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ixtal ? Thewriter006 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I see that Legobot removed the  template on October 24.  That formally ended the RfC.  Anyone could have formally restarted the RfC by restoring that template, but no one did.  Meanwhile various people, including myself, decided it was time to add their own comments to the Survey.  When User:Quale made his first attempt to delete the quote farm, the RfC was already one month past expiration, but another editor reverted it, commenting that there was an "ongoing RfC".  I plead guilty to not having known how to behave during an RfC, and I'm not the only one.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: wut? Thewriter006 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at WP:RfC.  Warning: it's long.  That's what I read before posting the above comment. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Old RFC

message: It is well known that the  archbishop which combines powers of a bishop and a knight and the   chancellor which combines powers of a rook and a knight are popular fairy pieces because the master José Raúl Capablanca proposed to add them to a “new” chess to neutralise the threat of "draw death" for master chess. In a parallel to Vladimir Kramnik’s theoretical criticism of Fischer Random/960, “British champion William Winter thought that there were too many strong pieces [in Capablanca chess], making the minor pieces less relevant.” However, Kramnik and Fischer Random/960 is the more interesting case because we know he has come up with an alternative solution to computers squeezing out human creativity. He thinks it is necessary because even other masters don’t enjoy the game until more familiar positions are achieved and “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”. In other words, he sees the main practical flaw of Fischer Random/960 as being that the vast majority of both players and viewers think more like Capablanca about how a “new” chess should be. 24.49.51.83 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: so what now? Thewriter006 (talk) 08:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether masters do not want a “new” chess just because they criticise Fischer Random/960 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess#Observations_2
1 - Since the King, Queen and Rooks all move sideways, only the BNNBXXXX, XBNNBXXX, XXBNNBXX, XXXBNNBX, XXXXBNNB, XXXXBNBN, XXXXBBNN, NNBXXXXB, NNBXXXBX, NNBXXBXX, NNBXBXXX, NNBBXXXX and BXXXXBNN starting positions have no legal way to transpose into any other starting position. This makes 156 starting positions with truly independent opening systems, and the 96 XXXXBNBN, XXXXBBNN, NNBXXXXB, NNBXXXBX, NNBXXBXX, NNBXBXXX, NNBBXXXX and BXXXXBNN starting positions will leave a pawn unprotected.
2 - Any starting position where one knight is not adjacent to the King or Queen or a Bishop will leave a pawn unprotected. Most such starting positions will have the two knights adjacent and exist among the 804 which have a legal way to transpose into any other starting position.
They are in separate bullet points, but I think they should be merged somehow. Eg the 804 of course is the complement of the 156. Thewriter006 (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify the 2 new observations 

message: lemme know what you think please
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess Thewriter006 (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiquote 

message: obviously to new wikipedia here. ok now that wikiquote is made
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
can we do anything like have a section on what grandmasters think about 9LX but then the entire body is just '(see wikiquote)' ?
and if not then i mean... just something to let people know 'hey top players actually do talk about this a lot' and many of them are pro-9LX? or well even like a mini-quote section maybe like in chess endgames
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chess_endgame#quotes
note: this may or may not have been discussed already above. lazy to check and it may have not been elaborated upon due to the lack of a wikiquote page in the 1st place. Thewriter006 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiquote is just external links? 

message: It seems wrong to me to give the name 'freestyle' in the lede; the name of the game does not necessarily change every time a sponsor comes up with a different branding. Knot Lad (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliable sources were to begin calling it "Bozo Chess", we'd have to say so in the lead.  Encyclopedias and dictionaries should describe usage, not prescribe usage.  Marcus Markup (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the influence of Wikipedia, a mention of it in the lede would legitimize it far more than it would ordinarily be. I'll be honest; I hate the name "Freestyle" chess. It's been called Fischer Random and Chess960 for a long time. That gives it a well established foundation. "Freestyle" has not been publicly used prior to this tournament, nor has it been used in any of the major chess websites and literature. If it becomes a commonly used name in the future, then I would say it's acceptable to include it. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is a goofy name and it makes me cringe, however, it is being used by mainstream sources such as The Guardian and Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/sports/chess-bored-with-standard-chess-go-freestyle-2024-03-12/. I simply do not believe in removing well-sourced usages because it might "legitimize" unorthodox usages through their mere mention. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I have removed it from the lede. Notably I did this because the term was trademarked by the organizers of the GOAT tournament (https://www.freestyle-chess.com/news/freestyle-chess-major-announcement-by-magnus-carlsen-and-jan-henric-buettner/) and they specifically refer to the variant they're playing as Chess960 in that article ("Freestyle Chess is a registered trademark. [...] All games will be played according to chess960 rules (also known as Fisher Random)"). Freestyle Chess is branding for their tournament and organization (notably the Freestyle Chess Players Club and Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Tour) and is not, at least currently, actual chess lingo. This may change in the future as a result of this trademark, but for now I think it's best we avoid fad marketing terms outside of discussing the fad itself. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was digging through the history of this page on the variants and found that the "synonym" issue has occurred before with the Chess9LX tournament. They ultimately came to the conclusion I did regarding trademarks. It's worth reading through and noting, since this kind of branding issue may come up in the future. 2601:283:8481:2420:B02B:67B:57A8:10B1 (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming issues