Talk:Fischer Random Chess

Sirs it seems to me that in looking over Fischer Random Chess that what we have here is a creative variation in how chess can be played and in how the pieces are set up on the board. It is still chess never the less. In reading about this variation over the internet one can easily get the wrong impression of what Bobby Fischer has done here or perhaps why. Most people who play chess have set up the game up in a curious way in one way or the other and played chess this way, so the variation is really not knew or unexpected. This variation and others give the game a bit of diversity. This is to be applauded. I love tradional chess but I also see that variations of how the game is played are necessary and are fun. Nice going Mr, Fischer.

Rrepectfully, Randy Stobart. sharonmstobart@aol.com

PS. In my book Bobby Fischer is still The world Chess Champion and until he is defeated he will stay the champion. I mean no disrespect to the recognized world holder of this title. But if I was him I would always be looking over my shoulder for Bobby Fischer and wondering if I really was the champ.

Alekhine still hasn't been defeated since regaining his title from Euwe, you know.... --Camembert

Well, the official rules from FIDE and the US Chess Federation are very clear that the starting position of a chess game is always the "orthodox" position. Obviously, no one can take away your birthday if you start in a different position, but it seems fair to state that doing so results in a different game, a "chess variant". I like Fischer Random Chess, but it seems much less confusing if it's given a different name from simply "chess", and I think most sites seem to do the same thing - they classify it as a "chess variant". -- Dwheeler 22:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

The stuff about castling here seems very confused. For example, we have:

The king may not move through any square (towards its destination) that is under attack. Although it is not entirely clear, this probably should be interpreted as including occupation of the square by an opposing piece.

In other words, it isn't clear whether squares between the king and its destination can be occupied. But immediately after that it says:

All squares between the king and rook, and their final squares, must not be occupied by any other pieces. Castling cannot capture pieces.

In other words, squares between the king and its destination definitely can't be occupied. Also, squares between the rook and its destination can't be occupied. But then in the section on "FullChess" (a term I've never before come across, incidentally), it says that:

Later versions of the Fischer Random Chess rules clarified that indeed, Fischer intended to allow castling to "jump" other pieces.

In other words, squares between the king or rook and their destinations definitely can be occupied. So which is it? Is there, in fact, a single authority on Fischer Random rules (if so, what?) or is the game played with a number of little variations in castling rules?

On a completely different point, Micky Adams is described here as "world champion in blitz (rapid) chess" - is that really true? I don't know of any blitz world championship (I might just be forgetting something, of course). There's a blitz rating list, I think - does it perhaps mean that he was number one on that list (I seem to remember that he was at some point - maybe he still is)? --Camembert

---

When Fischer first came out with his rules, his castling rules were maddeningly ambiguous, which is part of the problem. "FullChess" was an attempt to give clear rules on the point. There is, finally, a single authority on Fischer Random chess rules - the official rules. The only version of the official rules that seems to be online is the Spanish version (see the reference list), so be prepared to use Babelfish. The rules are very clear that the spaces CAN be occupied between the king and its final position by your own pieces, as long as the squares between the king and rook initial positions ARE NOT occupied. In orthodox chess, those are one and the same, but not so in many Fischer Random positions. One weird thing is, what happens if there's an opposing piece that the king "jumps over" - is that okay? The official rules don't seem to be clear at all about this point (at least via Babelfish), unfortunately.

I'm making an inter-library loan for the book on Fischerandom chess. When I get that book, I'll see if it clarifies the castling rules further.

The article I referenced referred to Adams as the world champion in blitz (rapid) chess. By all means, please check that further if you question its veracity, but I'd be surprised if there was NOT such a champion!!

-- Dwheeler 22:19 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Which of the articles refers to Adams as World Blitz Champion? I can see him referred to as the world number one in blitz, but that's not the same thing. I checked through my database and couldn't find any world blitz championship, so I'm going to change that refernece.

I've had a look at all the sites linked to from the article and read around the subject a bit. As far as I can see, those Spanish rules are just a translation of the rules at http://www.frankfurtwest.de/ChessClassic/cc03/e/c960/rules.htm - these are the rules used at the Mainz Chess Classic (where Leko and Adams had their match).

I'm not very sure what the confusion is over the king being able to leap over enemy pieces - what makes you think that enemy pieces might be treated any differently to friendly pieces? There's nothing in the rules to suggest they should be treated differently, and a piece doesn't attack the square on which it stands, so I don't understand what the problem is.

However, being able to leap an enemy piece is dependent on being able to leap a piece at all, which I must admit, I'm still not convinced is allowed. You say above "The rules are very clear that the spaces CAN be occupied between the king and its final position by your own pieces". I'm sorry, but I can't see anything that clearly says this is allowed - could you point out the relevant part to me? FICS (http://www.freechess.org), which purports to use the same rules as were used at Mainz, doesn't allow castling in that situation. ICC (http://www.chessclub.com) explicitly states that jumping over pieces is *not* allowed; their rules for Fischer Random say ". . . squares the king passes over or onto cannot be attacked by the opponent or occupied by pieces, squares the rook passes over or onto cannot be occupied . . .". Maybe these servers are just implementing the rules incorrectly, but I think this shows at the very least that the rules are not absolutely clear on this point. (Incidentally, in none of the games in the Leko-Adams match did this situation arise - I don't know about the 2002 Mainz event - I've not yet managed to track down the games played there).

Also, I'm not very sure we should spill so many words on "FullChess" - as far as I can tell the name hasn't spread very far beyond the website linked to from the article. I'm going to leave all this as it is for now, but I may well give it a rewrite at some point in the future. --Camembert

Early versions of the Fischer Random chess rules didn't give enough details on the rules for castling, which is why there are so many different interpretations. As you note, the ICC doesn't allow the king to jump over pieces, nor does FullChess. However, the writeups on the "Chess Variants" don't forbid this. The ruleset by Eric van Reem (http://www.frankfurtwest.de/ChessClassic/cc03/e/c960/rules.htm) certainly doesn't either. I found one ruleset that clearly stated that some squares could be filled, but now I can't find it (naturally!). I'm going to try to get the Fischerandom book and see if that clarifies things. FullChess is sometimes claimed to be the same as Fischer Random, but it seems to have different rules, so I think some text clarifying the differences is the right thing to do. --Dwheeler 22:15 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It's true that the rules don't explicitly forbid jumping, but nor do they explicitly allow it, and my feeling is that allowing the king to jump over pieces while castling is so counter-intuitive that there would be an explicit note in the rules allowing it if it was meant to be allowed. Anyway, hopefully the Gligoric book will clear this up. --Camembert

Ahah!! I found it! It was in van Reem's description, see its "Remark" section. Squares can be filled that would ALWAYS be empty in orthodox chess, depnding on initial position. These were the rules used by grandmasters, which is about as official as we're likely to get. I removed the stuff about the opponent's piece, nothing seems to complain about that. I'm still going to try to get the Gligoric book (anyone else have a copy?), but until I get it, this seems to be the best available information. --Dwheeler 04:02 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not sure that's what the "Remark" is supposed to be about. It's true, as it says, that squares can be filled that would always be vacant in orthodox chess, but that's not the same thing as saying that pieces can be jumped over. For instance, consider a starting position with the white king on d1, and white rook on c1 - it is possible to castle a-side even if a1, b1 and e1 are occupied, which would be impossible in orthodox chess; however, no pieces are leapt over in this case. I think that's the sort of position the comment is meant to refer to. Or, to look at it from the other side, consider a starting position with the king on b1 and rooks on a1 and c1 - is white allowed to castle h-side if d1 is occupied? Whether the "Remark" is meant to cover jumping over pieces or not, it doesn't cover this situation (only the squres e1 and h1 are mentioned in h-side castling, not d1).

I'll see if my library can get hold of the Gligoric as well. In the meantime, I'm going to email the press guy from the Mainz Chess Classic and see if he (or somebody else at Mainz) can clear this up - whatever the rule is meant to be, it certainly could be expressed more clearly than it is. --Camembert

---

That'd be great, thanks for trying to get hold of those folks. -- Dwheeler 16:35 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm now talking via email with Reinhard Scharnagl, Eric van Reem, and some others. I hope to get this worked out. -- Dwheeler 23:02 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jolly good. I emailed a couple of the people from Mainz the other day (though not van Reem himself), but have yet to receive a reply. I hope this can be sorted out as well. --Camembert

van Reem's initial reaction is that the literal rules are not what he intended. But, what "the chess community" or Bobby Fischer really want isn't yet clear. In the past there hadn't been much discussion about the castling rules. Apparantly we've started such discussions, and they will try to work out clear, unambiguous rules. What exactly the rules will be is unclear yet. I think for the moment we leave the text as is, listing published alternatives. I'm in discussions with van Reem and others to make sure there's a simple, clear definition. Once there is one, we can label it as the official rules according to X and then note the other options later as historical information (if we want it in at all). Hmmm, writing an encyclopedia article causes a change in what it describes. I'm not sure what to call that process. -- Dwheeler 23:31 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There seems to be universal agreement that "jumping" pieces was not intended, even by van Reem. So, I've rewritten the text here to clarify the rules as intended. --Dwheeler 19:17 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting all this out. We've got a better article and a better set of "official" rules in the offing. Maybe you should write to people about the orthodox chess world championship and sort that little mess out next ;) --Camembert

Curious naming comment

Bridge players would probably suggest it be called "duplicate chess".

Why? Even after scanning the article for bridge, I don't get the quip. (I'm assuming it's a quip). Would someone care to enlighten this bridge-nitwit? --- JRM 11:38, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)