Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 20:39:40 05/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2003 at 13:09:08, Peter Berger wrote: >On May 30, 2003 at 19:58:22, Landon Rabern wrote: > >>As far as Shuffle vs. FRC, for some reason I find FRC more aesthetically >>pleasing, that's all. > >Yes, a matter of taste. > > 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? > >To say that Reinhard just _mentions_ FRC is _really_ a stretch :). Personally I >have no problems with FRC at all, to each his own. >What I disagree to is that it is so different to Shuffle Chess variants when the >only major difference are castling rules. And I also don't think that it adds a >complete new dimension to the game. I have tried to support this with data in >another post. The castling rules in FRC are designed so that regardless of FR inital position, you can reach "normal" classical looking positions if both sides castle Similarly the restriction of 2 bishops on different colors, king between both rooks,forced symetry etc. The idea I think is to randomise the opening position to neutralise the advanatage of opening books yet retain the favour of classical chess by allowing middle games to look like normal classical chess positions if both sides castle. In shuffle chess you rarely reach a normal looking position, because of the lack of castling. In FRchess it's more common to do so,, >The only thing I dislike somewhat are the praised castling rules, but this is >just a matter of taste as you mentioned. I definitely have no problems with the >fact that it was invented by Fischer :) > >Peter
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.