Author: F. Huber
Date: 07:30:29 08/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2005 at 10:18:44, Tord Romstad wrote: >On August 01, 2005 at 10:07:49, Andreas Stabel wrote: > >>Chess 960 is really chess 480 since half the positions are mirror images of >>other positions and therefore funtionally identical. >> >>I do not understand why these mirror positions have not been eliminated. > >Because they are *not* functionally identical. Castling is not symmetrical. >When castling queenside, the king ends up on c1/c8, when castling kingside, >the king ends up on g1/g8. > >Tord Well, I would say it _is_ identical, if you simply swap the meaning of O-O and O-O-O. It´s almost the same as e.g. 1.a4 would be 1.h4 in the ´mirror´ game, so it´s only a matter of naming conventions. What I am really wondering about is, why the restriction "king between rooks" has been kept? Without this restriction (and by simply making a little modification to the castling moves) there would be much more starting positions. Franz.
This page took 0.01 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.