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

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.

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 he
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...s/message/1161

- Rich

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?

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.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
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?

I'm assuming that `fair' here means that, a priori, one's chance of
winning the game doesn't depend on whether one is playing black or
white. Symmetry of the initial position certainly doesn't imply
fairness. For example, the position identical to the ordinary chess
starting position except that the queens are on d4 and d5 is clearly
won for white. I realise this isn't a possible FRC starting
position so, for a less extreme example, just consider the
conventional chess starting position: white, empirically, does better
than black so the position isn't fair.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mexi-Puzzle (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intriguing conundrum that comes
from Mexico!

Taylor Kingston wrote:
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?


Yes, of course. The normal starting position in classical chess is
patently unfair. It would be made more fair by inserting a coin flip
for color before the first move. Or, it's possible (I don't know how to
do this) to create an asymmetrical starting position that exactly
compensates for White's first move.

Thus, it's more likely that the only *fair* starting position is
*asymmetrical*, and that all symmetrical positions are inherently UNfair.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

"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!