Chess in the Mainztream

I didn't know that there is some type of world ranking system for Chess960. It appears to be called the "IPS", which is an acronym for "Individual Player Strength". According to the link below, Aronian is number 2 with an IPS of 2800, Nakamura is number 5 at 2777, Movsesian is number 6 at 2771, and Bologan is number 22 at 2702.

http://chesstigers.de/ccm9/chess960_rapid_world_championship.php?lang=0&kat=2&subkat=1

So, I learned something today, but I have no idea where the complete list is or how it has been developed.

Would be interesting to see Karpov play chess960. To see how much his recent losses are due to lack of opening preparation.

Seems they have a separate page for each round in the live coverage which should get rid of the problem of finding out what happened in the previous round (see the same page you link to further down).

Luke
http://ratings.schach-chroniken.net/ips/wnca/topranking.html

Nakamura should be invited for the rapids! After all he is the rapid champion beating Ivanchuk and also quite fast on net.

Man, every year I forget how looking at these shuffle chess positions makes me queasy. In fact it looks like someone already threw up on the board. Often they boil down to relatively normal positions, but jeez. Soooo ugly!

Nakamura lost the first two games today, to Aronian then Movsesian. Up a pawn against Bologan now.

There's (now?) a round-by-round list of replay links on the bottom of that live page, which isn't as handy as having html results and crosstables, but is a help. Just add up all the scores yourself.

The other reason I complain about this regularly is that like many people I'm often checking in on a mobile device that can't view Flash objects like the DGT Toma board software.

Wow, Levon Allmighty - 3 out of 3. Movsesian, Naka, Bologan were really wiped out.

Upon reflection, I wouldn't call this "Chess" in the Mainztream, but "Chess960" in the Mainztream. Certainly isn't chess...

I've tried many games of 960 or "FischerRandom" and it leaves me a little cold. Just not very interesting for some reason. Perhaps it's more comforting to play from a repeated position that can be studied with lots of research available, or perhaps it's that the movement of the pieces was designed with the starting positions in mind. Albeit there have been some changes over the years, such as pawn, bishop and queen movement, but nothing as radical as placing ALL of the pieces randomly.

This variant is so much fun to play and you have to be so much more alert because the usual patterns are different in the opening. Pawns that aren't usually hanging are prey and rooks and bishops come to life quicker in some positions. It also helps middlegame training.

960 FischerRandom rules!

I do like the idea of 960, seems interesting, but at the same time I share Mig's impression, the board seems/feels totally strange. And I guess I've never won a 960 game hehehe.

I love to play Chess960, and it's fun to play especially when you don't like to memorize openings and like tactics.

I have never heard of 960 events here in Armenia.

I'm not a big fan of 960, but I do like this similar variant... Each player sets up his/her first rank as normal, but then shuffles the locations of all their pawns...

:-P

Does anybody know how we can play chess 960 or regular blindfold chess against Fritz ?

I've said this before, but, well, who hasn't repeated themselves on this blog?... I think one of the things that Chess960 does is destroy the classic "narrative" of the chess game: the beginning-middle-ending paradigm that is one our most fundamental metaphors and organizing principles ("our" as in human). Instead, Chess960 seems to call forth a chaos-clarity course (darkness-light, disorder-order) -- a no less potent paradigm, but one profoundly unsettling to those who've grown up "living through" the beginning-middle-ending sequence of events.

Luke -- Yes that's an interesting idea... if you could decide your OWN placement of the pieces on the back rank, and the other player would have to mirror them....

So, white places one piece (and black mirrors), and then black places two pieces (and white mirrors), white places two (and black mirrors), black two (white mirror), and finally white places the last piece. (The last piece is already determined).

Now *that* would be interesting....

I, too, think that opening theory is far too dominant. But if you chuck "classical" chess for 960, the problem is, you not only chuck opening theory, but also much middlegame theory- a lot of what players know is based on typical positions and structures arising out of different openings. All that would be lost, and with it much knowledge of the game! Still, 960 is an interesting sideshow, let's have more.

Fischer chess is awesome , different patterns only means chaos if you are too dependant on opening theory .
I play both (regular and 960 ) and always had the feeling that oponents had to prove a lot more in 960 , not just that they memorized some lines.

I've always found it ironic that Fischer would invent a form of chess whose starting position is chaotic and minimizes the influence to opening theory to almost zero. In his practice, Fischer leaned heavily on a limited repertoire of opening systems, which he knew inside and out, and played in a very classically efficient style. He was NOT a player who reveled in chaotic positions.

Hikaru obviously wants ChessBase to post:

Chess Classic: Nakamura dominates in Chess960

As today's report.

Of course you guys are all queasy and a little cold and miss your narrative: you're just thrown out of Mommy's comfortable womb (your well-known opening and middlegame patterns), and asked to live and breathe on your own. No wonder you hate that and cry and wanna go back -- but come on guys, Mommy can still help you, just try to think

Chess960 has its place along with bughouse. They are interesting in that you can play them if you know the rules of chess, but neither "fixes" chess. I am not opposed to Chess960, but I always find it funny how many amateurs cling to the idea because it means less upfront work (so they think). No doubt some will try it and still get killed by stronger players--only now they can't blame openning theory.

I play it from time to time and enjoy the challenge. I'm just sick to death of hearing about how chess1 is played out and how it now requires too much knowledge to play. I don't think there is anyone on this site, me very included, who is strong enough to honestly hold that position.

Looks like a Nakamura vs. Aronian final in the 960.

Benko's Pre-chess allows each side to set up the pieces on the back rank, one at a time, white first.
It can be asymmetrical or symmetrical depending on what the players do. Black may have a slight advantage that compensates for white's first move, if black can respond appropriately.
Bishops must be on opposite colors.
Benko allowed castling only if king and rook were on the squares as regular chess.

An interesting modification is to allow fischer random castling frc constraints - king between two rooks.

This would be FRC but not necessarily symmetrical nor is it random. So its Fischer random Benko Pre-Chess.

I meant to say it would be Fischer Castling rules /Benko Pre-chess.

I like Thomas' "narrative" theory. I don't believe there is anything random about the starting position. The game evolved into this perfectly balanced form that resembles harmony. You'd better think hard before throwing it away for a little fun.

Not to mention all the history and culture that would be lost.

I suppose that chess 960 is "interesting" to those who think chess master are creative geniuses who, by mental force, can just whip up something in any position (I call this the Arthur C Clark theory of chess "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- also known as 1400-chess or "any sufficiently stronger player can generate moves or plans that dazzle a beginner").

But don't most of these chess 960 games just putter around until they reach a position where the normal version of chess strategy rules apply? They don't show new positional ideas, do they? The pieces don't suddenly change their relative values or take on new strategic values, do they? Bishops still like open positions (even if they might be harder to obtain), right? Knights still like closed positions (even if they might be harder to obtain), right?

If so, what is the point?

IMHO, true art is not acting out of chaos, but acting within very defined rules to create something only slightly new. It is like crafting a new song or piece of music. Rock music may be 4-4 rhythms, but there is almost infinite variety in that very limited space. That is what art is about.

Similarly, chess openings and middlegames (and endings, too) are hard-won knowledge gained by years and years of trial and error experimentation.

Frankly, chess is fun *because* one can try to judge one's moves according to principles that are known from experimentation. Chess is fun *because* one can go back and see what went wrong...and obtain greater knowledge and try again.

How can chess 960 be "fun" if one isn't sure whether one's first move is good, bad, or indifferent? Whether it is brilliant or horribly weakening? Whether one had a good game and blundered or a miserable position?

I'd rather not recreate the wheel or fire, thank you.

Einstein found e=mc2 because of Newton...not by generating an entirely new universe.

¨IMHO, true art is not acting out of chaos, but acting within very defined rules to create something only slightly new.¨

Congratulations, you just gave one definition of mediocrity.

¨ Rock music may be 4-4 rhythms, but there is almost infinite variety in that very limited space. That is what art is about.¨

No ,it is not , that is called being a cyclope who claims that 3d is a fake.

I like the idea of asymmetrical starting positions. I would give White position #x of Chess960 and Black position #y, where x and y are random numbers from 1 to 960. It would create nearly a million different starting positions.

Actually, Einstein's theories fundamentally contradict Newton's so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

In my view, Chess 960 and all of its possible variants are fun. I found something closer to what Manu said: many (especially blitz and lightning players) use custom schemes they can play fast no matter what the other does (ex 1... g6. 2 ...,Bg7. 3 ...,d6) so they can win a few seconds on the clock. With the variants all of that is ruled out. But that's not as much (at least in this context of "not-too-strong-online-players") theory but coffeehouse playing: it exists since two players asked for a coffee while playing. I find some variants very much fun, while others aren't interesting at all (as shuffle pieces and pawns on the 4 rank). There are many on FICS, i don't know if they're available on ICC. One good point for this kind of chess is that while it's harder to find an opponent to play with, I've never found one who would complain or insult after a defeat. Sure online players know what i mean. As for engines, I think Sjeng can play many variants and you only have to find a client for it.

I guess it is pointless to argue about this. Either proponents of Chess960 replacing Chess are correct that Chess is played out, or they are wrong. If they are right (although it mostly sounds like they are just burned out because of their opponents' hard work), then I will be one of the last humans on earth still trying to figure the game out for myself. If they are wrong, then Chess960 will stick around as a diversion--a parlor game to be played in skittles rooms and PR events among strong players (like blindfold events and simuls). Time will have to tell.

I am not anti-Chess960, just anti-anti-Chess1.

I'm with you guys, stendec and Thomas.

Manu -- if people are delighted at losing in Chess960, it's probably because it was a joke to begin with, and nothing was at stake. I think the key test will be when players start making a living from it; then see whether they're so happy...

Rather than ridiculing chesspride because he had the temerity to include Newton and Einstein in the same sentence -- people should try to understand what he's saying. Technical difficulty, aesthetic constraints, and stylistic continuities have been part of the conception of "art" for a very long time (this is why modern art has been so difficult for some to accept "as" art). Chesspride's idea that Chess960 does away with those important factors -- or relocates them to places where they can be so difficult to discern that they may as well not be there -- should be taken seriously. If one values chess as an art at all (rather than as a game or diversion), Chess960 cuts away at its foundation. Those foundations can, I'm sure, be replaced or reconfigured -- but don't underestimate the difficulty of that project.

Finally, you may wish to wonder about why it is that a man with such an apparently warped, even fractured, sense of the world about him (is it fair to say fractured sense of the self?) became so besotted with a form of chess that apparently institutionalized incoherence.

Aronian about Chess960:

You have a preference for many chess variations like bughouse etc. Above all, you are the world’s leading expert in Chess960. Can you give our readers an idea what is most important in Chess960?

I think you need a feeling for harmony. You have to develop your pieces properly and must know how to manoeuvre them. It is a very tricky game. Tactics play a much bigger role in Chess960 than in classical chess. Some players who play this game well survive because of their tactical strength. But if you want to play a perfect game, you need a strategic vision.

Why are tactics more important in Chess960 than in classical chess?

In Chess 960 unusual and tactical motifs often crop up, motifs, which you might see in problems or studies but rarely in classical games.

...

You have been a regular guest of the Chess Classic for many years. Before you won the Chess960 World Championship, you were the only player ever to win the FiNet Chess960 Open twice. What does the Chess Classic mean for your career?

Well, you know, the first time I won the tournament, my rating was around 2600 or maybe even less. Winning that tournament gave my self-confidence a boost. For me, Chess960 is a kind of pure chess. This kind of chess somehow shows whether someone knows where to put his pieces. Maybe that was the reason why I won this tournament twice, to show that my success was no coincidence (laughs). In my opinion Chess960 shows that a player has talent. And that was a good feeling.

You think Chess960 is a good indicator of talent because you cannot hide behind your opening knowledge?

Yes, I think in Chess960 the more creative players are in a better position than people who are more into remembering opening lines.

Did you play Chess960 in other tournaments or in private?

No, somehow I have never played it.

Did you do any preparation for Chess960?

Yes, I read some books and watched some movies (laughed). To be relaxed is good training for your inspiration.

From:
http://www.chesstigers.de/ccm9_index_news.php?id=1753&rubrik=6&lang=1&kat=2

The reason why tactics are more importatant in chess 960 is that the strategy hasn't been figured out. But it's the absence of coherent strategy that makes the variant uninteresting to me.

Here is a book (or whatever) to be published (or whatever) in the year 2050:

“Winning Against Position 933!” (special sale price: 1 trillion yubos).

244 pages (or whatever) of detailed analysis, extending to the 25th move on how to defeat position 933. By the author of “How to Play Position 341 as Black” and “Black is ok in Position 45!”

Here is an excerpt from the book: Kladimir Busbaro, commenting on his game against FIDO Champion Flashovina Uwansum said “She seemed unsure where to put her left corner knight. I remembered the game Yabalot – Usuk from the Bumbolodian Invitational, 2045, also a 933 position, where Usuk played his corner knight to b5 by the brilliant maneuver Nh8-g6, then Ng6-f4, followed by Nf4-d5, Nd5 to b4, and only then, Nb4 to a6 (what a move!), Na6 to b8! (incredible concept), Nb8 to c6, and finally, Nc6 to d4, with the obvious point of Nd4 to b5! and the game was just a matter of technique after that.”

You really must buy this book and add it to your collection! Order now, and we will send you our entire series of books on positions 900 through 960 for only an additional 18 trillion yubos.

If you think about it though - most of the strategy in chess is relatively easy to learn while its the superiority in tactics that win the game in the end. Fischer having mastered chess and being disgusted with it in his own mind must have been fascinated with the random nature of shuffle chess and added the castling rules to make it come to the more familiar middle game.
The castling rules actually make sense -- too many people are confused with the joint movements of the rook and king. Just think that the king and rook conspire to transpose in any way possible to 1 of two wing hideouts.
I like the earlier comment on benko prechess. It seems that setting up your pieces on the backrank allows the best of both ways and a totally different strategical element.

So Nakamura is the best tactician in the world? What a bizarre idea.

"Ok, who knows who the best tactitian is?"

Historically, I think Tal and Kasparov are good candidates for best tactician, based on their games over a very long period. GM Ray Keene makes this comment on Tal on the game page of http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259999&kpage=1 over at Chessgames.com

"black (Tal) played with amazing ingenuity-for a simul game its a real gem-i onced showed tal a series of incredible combinational positions which i was preparing for my book on nimzowitsch and he saw solutions so fast you wd not believe it-to the most extraordinarily difficult and recondite ideas "

Kasparov himself has a dazzling array of games in which his amazing tactical prowess is obvious. Interestingly, he also wrote in "My Great Predecessors" that Tal was the only person he ever knew who saw "through" combinations without actually mechanically calculating them, in the sense that hundreds of wonderful variations were swirling around in his head at any given time. (I cant recall the exact words.) This seems to imply that Tal's tactial ability was unique, at least in his experience.

I think its the way your brain is wired for Chess; its something you're born with to a great extent.

"black (Tal's opponent) .."

GM Sutovsky once explained in an ICC broadcast (possibly, during the US champioships) that there is no such thing as a tactical player or a strategic player. The only difference is whether a player chose to accumulate static advantages or dynamic advantages.

On Tal: Dvoretsky suggests in one of his books that he was actually more of a positional and intuitive player than a tactician like Kasparov. Of course, he had a brilliant mind and saw tactics and combinations with incredible speed, but he didn't tend to fully calculate everything in advance. Plus he transformed himself from the sacrificial player of his early years to become a much more solid positional player after that.

Re: Leko - I posted this before, but I think Kramnik's comments in relation to Petrosian are relevant (also to Tal) before anyone thinks Leko might not be so good at tactics:

"Defence and a magnificent tactical vision were his strongest points - that's why he was so good at defence. Only a brilliant tactician can succeed in defence, and he had perfect sight of all the tactical opportunities and nuances for his opponent. I would even say that attack, rather than defence, is a positional skill. You can attack mostly on the basis of general ideas, whereas in defence you have to be specific. Calculations of lines and verification of specific positional features are more important for defence than for attack."

Petrosian was an extremely gifted tactician, as was Euwe, somebody who you would not immediately associate with tactics perhaps. Alekhine and Fischer are two others who do spring to mind. I still think Tal and Kasparov stand out a bit above the rest, in terms of combinative and tactical vision, although they went about it in very different ways probably.

I know that I've read an article in which someone took thousands of games of the greats and had a computer check for tactical errors. The authors then gave each player a coefficient and ranked them on their accuracy of play. Can't remember where I read it, though. Anyone?

Nice to read the posts in support of Leko. I agree that he is underestimated as a tactitian. But I don't think of him as a defender in the Petrosian style. Leko is tough in defence but I believe he prefers the initiative and, unlike Petrosian, loves space.

The article on accuracy was here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3455

There's some "debunking" and comment here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3465

Though personally I don't think the criticisms - e.g. that you shouldn't use a weaker program to assess stronger players - really add up. The results are very likely to be similar if you use Rybka. Anyone who thinks e.g. Capablanca coming out as an extremely accurate player is an anomaly should just play through his games with a computer running (of course Capablanca's showing is one of the best rebuttals to silly claims of the moves of top players corresponding to Fritz being evidence of cheating).

Of course there's a lot of scope for interpretation - if you want to compare strength instead of simple accuracy then you'd want to compensate for the obvious increase in mistakes in players who favour complex positions, and so on. The young Tal was no doubt less "accurate" than the young Leko, but you might well prefer to have played Leko!

While we're on the topic. The most interesting statistics on a site mentioned on here recently for blitz ratings are the "sacrifice percentage" ones. e.g. for world champions:
http://members.aon.at/sfischl/wch.jpg
or 1981-2004: http://members.aon.at/sfischl/style.jpg

You can see e.g. how quickly Tal's percentage dropped from his meteoric start and how most world champions saw a "decline" (not necessary the correct word), though e.g. Kasparov was consistent over his career. Alekhine and Topalov also seem to be players who started off sacrificially, became more "peaceful", and then bucked the normal trend by becoming more sacrificial again. It's fun to look at, anyway, though I don't know how much you can really read into it... (of course a lot depends on the opposition and talented young players tend to play a lot more sacrifices for the simple reason that their opponents allow it).

"of course a lot depends on the opposition and talented young players tend to play a lot more sacrifices for the simple reason that their opponents allow it"

Yes, for example, look at how Anderssen's sacrificial tendency dropped off when he played Morphy.

In "My Great Predecessors" Part I, Kasparov gave Capablanca some compliments (he had to), but he also trashed many of Capablanca's games. Kasparov used a lot of ?! and ? when annotating Capa's games, and seemed to question his work ethic.

I don't have original sources, but I thought it's pretty widely known/accepted that Capablanca had hardly any work ethic at all - as regards chess, at least. I'm not saying that determined his style, just citing something I heard in a lot of places.

The other criticism - I don't recall whether this gained credence through Kasparov, or if some other trusted figure said it first - is that Capa got an unjustified reputation as an endgame "magician" simply because endgame theory was poorly understood during his time. So, a lot of endgames Capa won from what people in 1920 or 1940 had viewed as dead-even positions (contributing to his "magician" reputation), are nowadays recognized as clearly favorable for him....so his ability to win such positions was no big deal after all. (I'm not expressing any opinion myself, just passing along what I read, though again I can't recall the source.)

"I like to play Chess960. I enjoy the FiNet Open in which I can play Chess960. This year Grischuk was unbeatable in Chess960. It is a pity that I can only play it once a year on top level here in Mainz. I get bored from playing openings like the Slav over and over again. I think that in about 15 or 20 years we will only be playing Chess960."

Shakhriyar Mamedyarov (article in chessdom)

Jon & Luke,

If Capablanca was lazy and end-game theory was undeveloped then surely that should only add to our admiration for his end-game ability. It might not be magic (what is?), but he clearly outcalculated his opponents.

I haven't seen what Kasparov wrote in his Great Predecessors book, though this is attributed to him (I'm not sure from where):

"Capablanca invariably chose the right option, no matter how intricate the position".

Personally I don't think Capablanca or Kramnik topping those rankings based on the pure quality of their chess can be explained away by suggesting they only played simple positions (not true of either in their early careers). It's also worth bearing in mind that Kasparov no doubt sees himself in the line of hard-working, aggressive players like Alekhine rather than the more "effortless" chess of Capablanca, Karpov or Kramnik. So you'd expect him to be a little more critical of Capablanca.

Buildings are not very cheap and not every person is able to buy it. However, home loans are created to help people in such situations.