Computers! Maybe it's too much for humans to know all 960 starting position, but that sure doesn't stop a computer. Especially nowadays. For people, that's three orders of magnitude. Almost like making the start of the game an extra one and a half moves to think ahead before the game starts. This will work with people and the Chess will be more on how well you can move the pieces and how they work together, instead by rote and memorization. Computers on the other hand can start with all 960 positions and start working things out way in advance and have nice book ready for when the game starts. With the time it takes on the internet, even more so. This FRC Chess 960 is just a temporary solution for computer aided games, but I think it will work quite well with peple.

to Walter Montego:
I absolutely disagree here. One reason why I am working on such an engine is that huge opening libraries have given an immense advantage to computers. I always connect that approach with the FairChess idea, see: http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachfair_e.html . Smirf actually has a size of 46K.

If computers continue to improve as they have been, how long will it take for three orders of magnitude to be made up? 15 years? I imagine as computers get better, people and computers will also find better ways to solve problems further lowering the time it takes to solve Chess and simular games. Why can't a current Chess playing machine have the pieces set up for each position of FRC and work out a book for them? Imagine computers that work a 1000 times faster than the current models, or have chips with parallel processing, or a bunch of people all sharing their computers.

That link you sent me to is full of wishfull thinking. There's not a chance that computer makers are going to stop trying to improve their machines! Arms race, indeed it is. You might be able to organize a tournament where you set limits for the computers, but such a thing will get left way behind the actual developement of computers. It goes against human nature. We always want the best, so who's going to be interested in a bunch of limited computers playing Chess at our level when it can be played at a higher level?. In a just a couple of years computers will play Chess better than even the best human player. There won't be a doubt in anyone's mind about it like there is today. This is one of the reasons for the growing popularity of the larger Chess variants. Just a slight increase in the board and the addition of a couple new pieces doesn't make it much harder for a person to understand or play the game, but it greatly increases how much computing has to be done to play it. Chess's popularity and newsworthiness might drop when this happens, but I imagine the computers will then play against each other and the prizes might go up for that. Kind of like that show called "Battle-Bots" except it'll be Chess that they'll be playing. There already are Chess tournaments for computers, right? Perhaps one reason people don't care so much about them is that there's still a few people that play better than them. Do they let the computers enter regular human type Chess champion tournaments?

to Walter Montego:
It seems, that I have not been able for me to make my position clear. Actually no one performes a race between a Ferrari and a human being. It is not a goal for the next decades for man to still compete with computer bolides. It is essential for chess to be restricted in the use of ressources, e.g. time and looking up material. This rule has been not used by engines, to make programs an interesting opponent. But that situation will come to its end very soon.

If computers start to dominate FRC, then you switch to CRC random chess :)

Sumerian: You certainly aren't making your position very clear to me. Perhaps it's me, eh? :)

You're wrong about what you just said. You could've a few year ago and I bet today too, buy a Chess playing program called Chess Master. The user doesn't have to play it at its highesst level and can choose to play it at a lower level giving him a chance to beat the machine if his Chess playing ability is like the most of us. Chess masters play the game so much better than the regular Chess player that to them computers or chess masters are all the same, and then it's time to get the cards out and deal them.

By the way, I can beat a ferrara in a number of races. I can move sidesway lots faster. I can jump higher off the ground. I can climb stairs faster. I can get on two wheels easier. I bet the list goes on and on. As for just racing around a track, I suppose the Ferrari might win in that one instance. But only if it has a person drive it! Just setting there parked it won't make it one lap and I'll win that race too!

to Walter Montego:
Well, if you are breaking rules, it is easier to win competitions. And that is, why computer programs are more and more dominating. They still are allowed to use huge look up tables and gigabytes of table bases. A human opponent is not permitted to use even his own notes.

We have to distinguish between using machines to analyse situations or to perform an equal fight. How will you compare the quality of programs, when both sides have different ressources? How should their ablities be compared to a human being. It might be very effective to fetch data from huge tables, but it is not at all intelligent. It is essential for intelligent processes to give results based on restricted information in short time. Having Terabyte bolides play will become uninteresting immediately the will have won against the World Chess Champion in a match.

Fencer: The standard chess opening position is indeed a legal Fischerandom position, but anyone who wants to play it, will play regular chess.

Having it available for Fischerandom defeats the reason of the creation of FRC.

Trust me, FRC players don't play FRC hoping to get the orthodox starting position.

I started 2 FRC games, with 30 days time control. After 1 move the days left jumped to over 40. Is this correct? Did I setup a parameter wrong when I created the games?

I'm playing an Orthodox chess game (which I started in the before FRC era in BrainKing :-) and the game is well in progress, and we only have 27 days left. This looks more normal.

jcarrillovii: It depends on your/opponent's weekend and vacation days.

Fencer: Not sure how that works. Can you explain?

jcarrillovii:two weekend days per week and the players vacation days will be added to the player`s time.

Fencer: Are you creating a new discussion board dedicated to the FRC variant?

jcarrillovii: Fencer is thinking on cutting down the number of game boards, so game boards will be merged into one soon. In this scenario there's no point in creating a game board now only to merge it with the others some time after...

Walter Montego: (From Jan 22nd) Opening libraries are not originated by computers. They analyze tactice after the opening libraries (made my human study) and improve upon them. As far as I know, no opening has been designed exclusively by machine. The time-tested openings, created and maintained by humans, are studied by machine and master, and new ideas are brought out, sure. But The original ideas are human-inspired. Also, in FRC, the machine would have to design a plan to combat its opponent, and the human, who is a better planner, may design an idea which will outdo the calculator with which the human is playing. Computers calculate with given information, but the Idea is the advantage of human players. We will see what comes of it, but take the opening book away, and computer strength is reduced.

I see your concern, but at a website for enjoyment, any obstacle to computer interference is a good one. I come to enjoy myself, and the comfort of beating (or being beaten ) by an opponent who is playing unassisted is encouraging.

Silly question, how come all my opponents have a flag next to their name, and mine (Puerto Rico) is not showing?

jcarrillovii: Most likely because I don't have such flag. Can you send it to info@brainking.com?

Fencer: Here is a link to the flag: http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/pr.html

The Fischerandom Chess email Club (FRCEC) welcomes BrainKing to the family of chess sites that support FRC in the net.

Visit FRCEC's homepage at:
http://frcec.tripod.com

To subscribe to FRCEC, send an email to:
frcec-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The following FRCEC sanctioned events are now recruiting players, and will be played in their entirety in BrainKing.com



FRCEC Trio mini-tournaments

To join a Trio send an email to:
frcec-trio@yahoogroups.com

Currently recruiting for:

Location: BrainKing
T0024 Points 1 2 3 Country
1. open
2. open
3. open



FRCEC Quad mini-tournaments

To join a Quad send an email to:
frcec-quad@yahoogroups.com

Currently recruiting for:

Location: BrainKing
Q0004 Points 1 2 3 4 Country
1. open
2. open
3. open
4. open




FRCEC KnockOut Tournaments

Visit our KO's page at: http://frcec.tripod.com/KnockOut.htm

To join a KO send an email to:
frcec-ko@yahoogroups.com

Currently recruiting for:

Location: BrainKing
KO-0006
1. open
2. open
3. open
4. open
5. open
6. open
7. open
8. open



FRCEC Dropout Tournament

Visit our Dropout page at: http://frcec.tripod.com/Dropout.htm

To join a Dropout send an email to:
frcec-dropout@yahoogroups.com

Currently recruiting for:

Location: BrainKing
DP0004 - recruiting
1. open

There is a new preset for Omega Chess at chessvariants.com. Something for us here at BK?
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game%3DOmega%20Chess%26settings%3DAlfaerie

Caissus: I think Omega Chess must be licenced too.

Fencer: "On BrainKing, all games of the same tournament start with the same position."

Yeah, I found that out when I joined a Corner Chess tournament. I like FRC and CC because of having different setups. Then getting 12 games at once all having the same setup kind of spoils the fun. I don't mind that this happens with Froglet or Anti-Froglet, but I don't think I'll join another CC or FRC tournament.

AbigailII: This is a common issue and should be solved for all games with generated positions. there are two options - leave it as it is or change it to run the generator for each single game separately.

Fencer: My personal preference would be to run the generator for each single game (or perhaps for each pairing - if you have a tournament where you play each person with white and black, you get the same board, once with white, once with black). And perhaps it could be an option when creating a tournament. But I can live with it staying as it is. There are enough games on this site to choose from, and for most games, this isn't an issue anyway. (FRC, Corner Chess, Fortress Chess, Froglet, Anti-Froglet, that's it, I think)

AbigailII: The problem is that both approaches have their pros and cons. If I leave it as it is, people can complain that all games in the tournament are the same and some players can observe moves of the strongest player and copy them in their own games. On the other hand, if a new position would be generated for each game, players could think that it's not fair because some positions can be better or more balanced than the other ones.

Fencer: I'd make it so the tournament creator can choose one system or the other, then a player could decide which kind of tournament to play in. Or did you say that was what you are working on?

Fencer: Yes, that's why I suggested two things: 1) an option which approach to take when creatin the tournament, and 2) if you have a tournament where you play each person twice, you play the same board twice against that player. If it's a position that favours one side, you play once with that side, and once against that side.

But as I said, it's just my preference - I won't get upset if things stay as they are.

I like AbigaiIII approach better than everyone in a tournament playing the same position.

Although I rather like each game in the tournament to be different. That's how we play in FRCEC.

to AbigailII: Your assumptions are often made but never the less unfounded. It is essential in Chess960 that the position is known first when the clocks will be started. Compared to the common Chess game this reduces the advantage of white to be able to prepare the first move without measuring the preparation time. There is therefore a tendence to equalize chances. Which position you are talking of, that it should be andvantageous for White? Please specify it and proof that statement. See as an example the game of Shogi, which still is interesting after centuries, nevertheless there are three undefended pawns in the beginning. Establishing back fights with well known positions would be against the nature of Chess960 (Chess960 is the new name of FRC).

Sumerian: "Which position you are talking of, that it should be andvantageous for White?"

I never said there are positions that are advantageous for white. Or black. All I said that if you have a tournament in which you play the opponent twice, and you have the same setup for both games, that if there's an advantage for one of the sides, it's compensated because you face both sides.

Sumerian: "Please specify it and proof that statement."

No proof is needed. In fact, the crux of the matter isn't whether a position is an advantage for one side, what's important is whether people think a position has an advantage for one side.

Sumerian: "It is essential in Chess960 that the position is known first when the clocks will be started."

Yes, did I suggest otherwise? Note that on BK, all games start at the same time.

Sumerian: Chess960 is the new name of FRC You mean it's another name for Fischerandom Chess. I don't think Chess960 has caught on that well yet.

jcarrillovii: Perhaps Sumerian should ask Bobby Fischer what the name of it is?

Walter Montego: LOL @ Walter. I agree too.

reza: Unfortunately, I think ol' Bobby has gone off his rocker. Seems like they arrested him in Japan not long ago and were going to deport him to the U.S. for playing Chess in Yugoslavia against the wishes of the State Department many years back and also not paying income taxes on his winnings. I believe he spews a lot of anti-American rhetoric nowadays also, though he's still an American himself. Anybody know what's become of him, or should I look through the news on the internet? Maybe this has some of the desires for Sumerian to call the game by a different name. You know, for political correctness and such?

Walter Montego: I didn't know that Mr. Montego. Thanks for the information.

Today we speak mainly about "Chess960" with Peter Svidler as the first world champion:
http://www.rochadekuppenheim.de/meko/meko4/chess960.htm

Caissus: Errr, does that link have an English version?

Caissus: I did enjoy the photos of course :-)

reza: I have found these informations only in German,perhaps because the WCC have been in Mainz,Germany.

reza: LOL...I wish my German was half as good as his English!

Caissus: Yes, Caissus I can see that the name was changed or atleast you are calling it by a different name. Is this OK with Bobby, are did you do it on your own? If so, why? When did the name change come about? Or are there two names for it? Or is it that your group has one name and over here it's called Fischer Random Chess?

The link you sent me to is all in German and I can't read it. I was able to see that someone was playing a simultaneous exhibition of Fischer Random Chess. They even had name plates made for the participants. A right nice deal that must've been. Were you there?

Caissus & bwildman: OK! yes, Caissus's English is quite good while I can't speak even one word in German. But I say it again, the pictures were quite nice.

Walter Montego: I don`t know it exactly.
But I know it was at first Bobby`s idea. But he had forgotten to patent it . And other important chesspeople had the idea to rename this game to "Chess960". And now if you look about some events people speak mostly about "Chess960". But there is not a protected name!

Well, here are some links to English language articles http://www.chesstigers.org/alte_daten/chesstigers_alt/Tigers/cc/2004/e/default.htm .

I don't know about others, but I personally am not that much concerned about names. What matters to me is the game itself. Like in my language, SHATRANJ is the equivalant for chess while in English shatranj is agame quite different from chess!

Sumerian: I like the T-Shirt offer at your link! :)
Free Bobby Fischer! That's a good one. I get the feeling he's still in custody.
I have to leave now, but I think I will try to track down what has happened to him when I return. He was rather eccentric back in the 1970's when he won the championship. I imagine he still is.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news&articleid=195619

Walter Montego: "Anybody know what's become of him [Robert Fischer]"

Chessbase regulary posts articles what's going with Fischer. Its most recent article on Fischer, which includes links to previous articles: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2156

As for the name of the game, I prefer "Fischer Random Chess". "Chess960" sounds too much like "Windows 2000" and other brand names with pointless numbers. Besides, "480" would have been a more appropriate number.

to AbigailII: "Besides, "480" would have been a more appropriate number." - Why that?

Sumerian: Because there are really only 480 different positions. Each of the 960 positions can be paired with its mirror image. So the 960 positions is really 480 pairs.