Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 12:58:26 05/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2003 at 18:36:32, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >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. Seems completely religious to me. You are arguing passionately over this small detail between the differences of shuffle chess and FRC, and your points don't even support the superiority of FRC. You just keep stating things like "FRC castling makes perfect sense," which is nothing more than an opinion (that many people happen to disagree with). >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. There will always be "original squares for the king and rooks in chess". Maybe that is not true in FRC, but it is quite clear that he was speaking of "chess", not "FRC". The only thing this tells me is that you are the fanatic, arguing in a religious style, using manipulation as one of your methods. >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. If the only difference between the two is that shuffle chess has no castling rights, then shuffle chess is closer to real chess than FRC is. Castling rights can easily be removed from the starting position after 1. Na3 Na6 2. Nh3 Nh6 3. Rb1 Rb8 4. Rg1 Rg8 5. Rh1 Rh8 6. Ra1 Ra8 7. Ng1 Ng8 8. Nb1 Nb8. There is no situation in which the majority of castling moves in FRC are legal. >FRC has the goal to be an upper set of chess including traditional chess >consistantly as one of its 960 starting positions. Yet FRC ADDS TO THE GAME OF CHESS, making it purely a chess variant. >Therefore it has to support >castling in a way that is compatible with common practice. It does not HAVE to support castling, because it has already been shown that the original position can be reached without castling rights in legal 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. So you use the argument that "classic chess has always had...<insert whatever you'd like here>" when that is to your advantage, but I doubt you'd agree with me if I said, "classic chess has never had crazy castling rules, so it shouldn't start now". Sounds like more manipulation to me. >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. The only decent argument you've made that supports FRC in favor of shuffle chess is that two bishops on the same colored squares is undesirable. Other than that, I haven't seen anything but a religious war going on. I'll site examples if you'd like to dispute this further. >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. You have not shown this in any way. Gee...are you saying this statement is correct because it's YOUR OPINION? Sounds religious to me... >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. I'm glad you finally admit that this is all based upon your own opinion. You do understand that opinion is all a religous argument is based on, right? You are attempting to prove that FRC is better than shuffle chess, and that is simply not possible. You are no different than the thousands of newsgroup posters who argue endlessly about why C is better than C++, or why linux is better than windows, and so on.
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.