On Nov 6, 1:37 pm, Rich Hutnik wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:34 pm, SBD wrote:

On Nov 6, 11:18 am, Rich Hutnik wrote:

I had people arguing it wasn't, because the starting positions were
picked at random. Anyone here believe Fischer Random Chess is not an
abstract strategy game?

- Rich

I guess you would have to explain why "starting positions picked at
random" removes it from the category of "abstract strategy." I can't
see the connection.

Because the argument was that the starting positions may not be fair,
and you can't evaluate whether or not one player has an advantage over
the other. Therefore, it was argued it no longer is an abstract
strategy game. So the argument is unknown determination of fairness
makes it not an abstract strategy game, and thus out of the boundaries
of an association covering abstract strategy games. I figured I would
ask, because one person arguing had this replied to me: "You have
clearly demonstrated you are not an expert on abstract strategy
games". Anyhow, you can see the thread hehttp://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...s/message/1161

As I understand it, in Fischerandom the starting arrays, picked at
random by computer, are all symmetrical, like the starting array in
normal chess. Are unfair setups possible under those circumstances?