Gene Milener

The book notes that the venerable game of checkers switched to checkers156 around 1900. This is nearly the exact same change as chess960 represents. The change was so successful that a few decades later it had become dominant over original checkers, and it remains so today. This destroys any bluster that chess960 is an idea worthy of quick dismissal.

In the endlessly repeated chess1 setup there is a the well-known relatationship between the initial positioning of the knights and opposing bishops. In old descriptive notation, the move B-N5 (such as Bc1g5 or Bf8b4) is common, way too common, to the point of being dull. This pin maneuver is inherent in the chess1 setup. Now ask yourself: in the other 959 setups are there other types of maneuvers that are inherent? The answer is most assuredly yes. Well, what are they, and when was the last time you got to see what put to use in a grandmaster game, or got to use one yourself? Unless chess960 is part of your chess life, the answer is never. You are missing out. By rejecting all of the other 959 setups, chess1 drastically limits the opening phase. These limitations are exacerbated by its sameness or symmetry on the 'a' and 'h' wings of the board (RNB..BNR).

It has been widely assumed that with so many initial setups, that chess960 would mean no grandmasters would bother studying the opening phase any more. There would be way too much to remember, and it could be years before any particular setup one studied would ever be randomly chosen for one's tournament game. Yes, but that does not mean the opening phase would not be studied. Nor does it mean grandmasters would not gradually learn to play the opening phase better with each passing year. Instead, it means grandmasters would invent new ways of comprehending the opening phase, and finer principles for playing it. If the chess public excludes chess960, this entire area of chess knowledge will remain as yet undiscovered. Indeed, half of Nimzovich's opening principles turn out not to be principles of fundamental chess at all. Rather that half are nothing more than esoteric tactical considerations given the unchanging chess1 setup.

We should not let ourselves be excessively dominated by mere tradition. It would be healthier to compare the merits of chess960 and chess1 without the bias of history. Such a comparison shows that chess1 has extended our knowledge of fundamental chess in a way that chess960 never could. Chess1 has shown us in extreme detail what nearly perfect opening play looks like. Contrary to Fischer's statements, chess1 is not dead, far from it. Chess1 has its strengths and weaknesses, and chess960 has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. A major strength of chess960 is nothing less than its ability to reveal large swaths of fundamental chess that have long been hidden from us. Plus, the chess world could keep more of its sentimental greats active in the game longer if chess960 held a prominent place. Boris Spassky and Anatoly Karpov are two great players who eventually decided there was more to life than constantly studying the latest opening variations. Their FIDE Elo ratings fell sharply when they stopped being chess monks. But their abilities to play in chess960 likely remained world class longer. With only chess1 and without chess960, the chances are reduced that Garry Kasparov will ever make another run for either WCC title.

PART 2:

John Watson wrote about the evolution of chess principles during the past 100 years. Our study of chess960 shows that some of these principles were never principles at all. Also, we find that the principles of fundamental chess would have evolved faster and been discovered decades earlier had chess960 been part of the chess scene.

The book introduces a new approach to studying the new setup phase brought by chess960. This approach can also generate candidate moves for the earliest opening phase moves.

Several fascinating elements of fundamental chess have been brought to light by chess960. One is the factors that must go into decisions about castling. In chess1 both WCC Vladimir Kramnik and every young child have easily figured out that 'h' wing castling is the wisest thing to do. In chess960 it is often necessary to weight several factors, plan ahead, and adopt specific opening ideas in order to achieve an optimally castled king. The interplay of these considerations, and their execution, constitutes rich and beautiful chess.

Chess960 leads to a wide variety of castled king fort designs. In chess1 pawns almost always constitute the main portion of the king fort, even in a Bf8g7 fianchetto. But in chess960 pieces sometimes are the primary defense for the king. Entire books have been written about how to attack the two or three chess1 king forts that reoccur in 90% of all chess1 games. All those books need to be re-written for chess960.

Playing only chess1 has made us terribly naive about fundamental chess in some ways. Before the study of chess960 nobody spoke about the chess1 setup as having the characteristic of "knight opposition". It turns out that only 11% of all 960 setups have the full knight opposition that the chess1 setup has. That means the other 89% of setups differ in this important characteristic, with all the implications for play that entails. Andrew Soltis recently authored a book that encouraged readers to reassess the relative values of the pieces: that book needs to be re-written for chess960.

The book takes a look at the commonly held belief that White's unfair advantage in chess960 is even bigger than it is in chess1. Long story short, the data tend to refute that belief.

More importantly, we need to remember that tradition alone is not a wise reason to continue giving White his unfair advantage. In chess1 the range of opening moves is only a tiny fraction of the range in chess960. Chess960 gives us a rare opportunity to adopt the rule that says the second player chooses which color he wants to be, after the first player completes the game's first ply (there are ways to make this physically convenient). The game TwixT is one that uses this technique. This gives Black the same winning chances as White gets. This reminds us of the fair minded mother who tells her son to cut the last cupcake in half, then lets her daughter choose her preferred half.

Ways of reducing the draw rate are also discussed. The high draw rate is the second biggest problem in chess.

BOOK REVIEW:

There is a review of "Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960" published at http://chessville.com/reviews/PlayStrongerChessExaminingChess960.htm.

http://CastleLong.com/