Author: Landon Rabern
Date: 16:58:22 05/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2003 at 18:36:32, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Hello Peter, > >On May 30, 2003 at 17:50:06, Peter Berger wrote: > >[...] > >>The difference between those two variants is that one of them doesn't allow >>bishops on same colour which adresses one of Reinhard's concerns I agree to. >> >>When it is about castling rights I have little to add to Uri's posts - my >>impression is exactly the same, they are illogical and unnatural. A most easy >>extension would be to say that castling is only allowed in case king and rook >>are on their original squares btw, in case you are obsessed with castling I >>would create additional rules as suggested by Uri and can imagine no chessplayer >>to guess the rather artifial FRC castling rules. >> >>What to expect from engines in one of these variants? ( Or FRC - does anyone >>really expect a big change from some different castling rights ;) ?) - I have >>posted Rogozenko's report about his match against Chess Tiger today that gave >>details and want to point to game 6 of the match again. >> >>It's OK that there are people who love the FRC variant but I don't understand >>the religious style of the campaign at all. > >when you regard the type of my arguing to be in a religious style, then there >should be something wrong with it. That would be not at all the effect I intend >to raise. > >You call the FRC castling illogical and unnatural, and you are speaking from >'original' squares, but whithout giving some reasons for that. > >One part of the idea of FRC seems to be to have a lot of different starting >positions, which all should have equal importance and originality. Therefore >there are no 'original' squares for king and rook anymore. If you will share >that point of view there is only the decision left whether to support castling >or not. > >Pure Shuffle Chess refuses castling, it is strict in that point but by that it >establishes itself as a chess variant which stays not compatible with the >traditional chess game then. > >FRC has the goal to be an upper set of chess including traditional chess >consistantly as one of its 960 starting positions. Therefore it has to support >castling in a way that is compatible with common practice. There are some >concurrent proposals on how to perform castling: the cited two-step castling, >which is not possible with the king at files 'b' or 'h', the alternative of >finding the center frontiere between K and R (near to K when odd distance) and >jumping left and right to the neighboured fields, and finally targeting always >the established constellation known from normal chess. > >All those three approaches seem to be compatible with classic chess for the >first view. But only the last one is generic asymmetric, which alone will have >mirrored starting positions lead to different games. Traditional chess alwas has >had an asymmetric nature. > >That all written above has nothing to do with religion. But I regard this to be >strong arguments for the FRC to be the more consistantly defined upperset for >traditional chess. > >And still I am missing arguments from yours which are as strong as the one >described here. You call FRC castling rules 'illocical' and 'unnatural', but so >they finally are not. It always will remain also a decision of taste, to accept >them or not. But having the choice between Fischer Random Chess or Shuffle Chess >my well thought selection always will be FRC. > >Regards, Reinhard A note to the discussion. Implementing the FRC castling rules is easy. It took less than an hour. If someone can write a chess program they can implement these new rules quickly. So that should not even be an issue. As far as Shuffle vs. FRC, for some reason I find FRC more aesthetically pleasing, that's all. I really do not see how someone can say that Reinhard is arguing his position religously when in actuality it is the other side(why are there sides in this?) that has some sort of agenda. Why make arguments against FRC when someone who is not even arguing in favor of it just mentions it? The only reason I can see is because of personal distaste for Fischer. Bad reason. Regards, Landon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.