"SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
But wait, I am no expert either, but whether of not the start position
is fair appears to me to be an issue of fairness, not whether or not
it is an abstract strategy game. If you have to use "abstract
strategy" and it is a game, it is an abstract strategy game, whether
or not the start arrays were fair is a different issue.

The only caveat I can see is that the argument is being made that if
you know it is unfair, then you have some concrete way to win, and you
don't have to use abstract strategy. In that case, chess, since you
know whether or not certain positions can be won or lost (whether
through Fool's mate or Nalimov) isn't either.

I'll stay away from the debate. It's the question that drives me, Neo,
not the answer.



One thing I don't like about Chess960 is that it starts from positions that
are generally unreachable from the standard starting chess position. So there
is no connection to the history of chess that has come before. If one
accepts the principle of generating starting positions randomly, why not
take a less radical approach and do so with "normal" positions reached
from the standard starting position? This is essentially what is done in
checkers, where the the first 2 or 3 moves of the opening are assigned
randomly. Has anyone ever proposed something similar for chess
or have any comments on the idea? Obviously if there were 1000
starting positions (the appropriate number is a variable that would
have to be determined), it would be much harder to develop a deep
repertoire, and the game would be less dependent on the opening.
It might be fun to see Kasparov defend a French, or Anand play a
King's gambit!