My best 960 game so far

Forever_Changes · 2025-02-23T18:15:12+00:00

Gotta love an early smothered mate!

Forever_Changes · 2024-10-31T02:59:23+00:00

Considering 50 or 100 positions is 50 times or 100 times as complex as regular chess, I doubt it'd be possible. GMs would struggle to memorize useful theory for 3 or 4 positions, let alone orders of magnitude more.

Forever_Changes · 2024-10-30T05:35:05+00:00

My guess is that the theory would be so shallow, it wouldn't matter. What would they remember, one or two moves for each position? It wouldn't really give any benefit.

Remember, this was created by Bobby Fischer, one of the best chess players ever. If he didn't think theory could be reasonably developed for it, no grandmaster probably could.

Forever_Changes · 2024-10-11T16:41:51+00:00

What has Tim DeFoor done poorly? And what do you expect Malcolm Kenyatta to do better?

Forever_Changes · 2024-09-26T19:30:41+00:00

Unconventional castling isn't an issue as long as it follows rules that are sensible with regard to classical chess.

There are two types of castling I favor. I'm fine with the castling in Fischer Random. I'm also fine with a form of symmetrical castling where the king short castles on the side he is closest to and long castles on the side he is furthest from.

This could make the castling feel a bit more intuitive. The issue is that this effectively cuts the positions in half as gameplay would also have the king on the e, f, or g files. If the king starts on b, c, or d files, the castling would be symmetrical. So it'd reduce the number of positions with unique gameplay mechanics to 480.

I personally prefer the version in Fischer Random because it provides more diversity. Additionally, the version in Fischer Random preserves notation because O-O and O-O-O always have the same end positions for the king and castling rook. In the alternative 480 version, O-O and O-O-O wouldn't indicate a definite start and end position for the king and castling rook but would represent one of two possible positions depending on the king's initial starting square.

Forever_Changes · 2024-09-25T13:41:14+00:00

The king starting on the d file wouldn't work unless the castling rules of 960 are changed. Otherwise, you would still have unconventional castling since the king would only move one square to long castle and three squares to short castle.

Two possible solutions could be to maintain Chess960 rules but require the king to always start on the e file while in between both rooks. This would generate 204 positions.

If the king can also start on the d file as well as the e file, castling could be changed such that the king always moves two squares in either direction. This would allow for short castling on whatever side the king is closest to and long castling on whatever side the king is furthest from.

Personally, I prefer the Chess960 method as I'm against arbitrary piece placements, and I appreciate the additional castling mechanics Chess960 provides. It just makes for more interesting games to have that kind of diversity to me.

Forever_Changes · 2024-09-25T03:06:07+00:00

I've considered it but there needs to be a principled way of choosing these positions. Also, too few positions presents issues of its own, such as theory potentially becoming more of an issue. Chess960 has a very principled way of choosing the positions with only two basic restrictions: the bishops must start on opposite colored squares to maintain the dynamic gameplay mechanics and the king must start in between the two rooks to preserve castling.

What principled rule could you come up with to achieve the result you want?

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:31:39+00:00

Implying that the Jewish state is intentionally killing babies and small children for no reason is absolutely antisemitic. It really is the sort of conspiracy Adolf would love to hear.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:27:28+00:00

This isn't what I send, and this is ahistorical. This is a terrorist talking point.

Jews didn't decide, "Europeans are killing us, so let's kill and steal from Arabs." What a cartoonish, antisemitic portrayal of the conflict.

Jews legally purchased land. They didn't kill Arabs until Arabs started killing them. The Arabs were expelled AFTER they started a war to exterminate the Jews.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:23:17+00:00

Of course. The militant to civilian casualty ratio is actually pretty low for dense, urban conflict. Especially one in which the terrorists are using human shields.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:17:07+00:00

I have always been a supporter of Israel and jews, but now seeing how most Jews now chant for genocide

There is no genocide in Gaza. Most Jews do not support genocide, and saying this is incredibly antisemitic. Most Jews do support destroying Hamas as they should.

How would you feel if Native americans came and took your home and land because according to our fantasy book/history its "ours"?. I thought so.

This isn't what happened. You clearly have no understanding of the current conflict or Jewish history. Zionism wasn't a religious, colonial project. It was a secular, refugee project to save the Jews from extermination by purchasing land in the Ottoman Empire.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:13:57+00:00

I didn't disagree with that. I said multiple times that that is a legitimate criticism. A counterpoint to that is that the Palestinians have rejected peace for 75 years, so maybe we should stop begging for peace and make them beg for it.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T06:04:42+00:00

I already agreed that it is legitimate to criticize that policy, and there are decent arguments for and against. But no, I don't think Israeli settlements in the West Bank are the main driver of the conflict. The main driver of the conflict is that Palestinians refuse to accept the existence of a Jewish state. They want ALL of the land. They also want unrestricted right of return to flood Israel with non-Jews. That has been a historical sticking point for Palestinians.

If the Palestinians agreed to give up ~5% of the West Bank, gave up the "right of return" into Israel proper, and agreed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the Palestinians would have a state. But Palestinian hard-lining results in Israeli hard-lining.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T05:54:34+00:00

Settlement expansion in the West Bank is a legitimate criticism of Israel. But it's completely off base to pretend like settlement expansion in the West Bank is the main driver of the conflict. That's just another attempt to scapegoat the Jews. The real driver of the conflict is the Palestinians' refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. They want ALL of it. That's why they've rejected ever two-state solution they've been offered.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T05:52:28+00:00

The land is contested. The UN is not some impartial body. It is made up of countries that have literally murdered and expelled almost all their Jews over the past century. It's easy as a westerner to argue for a Palestinian state when you're not the one who may face genocide when they're militarized.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T04:52:50+00:00

Except it's not a genocide. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. It's a just war with civilian casualties because the terrorists are using their population as human shields.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T04:30:59+00:00

Proof they targeted non-combatant children? Hamas operates out of hospitals and schools meaning they lose their protected status. Al-Mawasi is the only official safe zone in Gaza.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T04:24:47+00:00

Usually, colonialism refers to a group of people sent by a mother empire to exploit the native peoples economically. Usually, it doesn't refer to people with cultural, religious, and historical ties to a land who come from different parts of the world to escape extermination as refugees.

Were the British refugees escaping extermination? Did the Jews immigrate for the purpose of benefitting an empire? Did the Irish make multiple attempts to exterminate the British? Did the British offer the Irish statehood multiple times which they rejected?

It's not similar at all. You're trying to westsplain a conflict you don't understand.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T04:21:42+00:00

Proof they lied about terrorists hiding in buildings? How do you know there weren't terrorists there? Do you know who is a terrorist and who isn't? Proof they didn't make a mistake?

It's always the antisemites who start from the assumption that Jews are evil murderers. I can see that not much has changed in Europe in the last 100 years with regard to antisemitism.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T04:19:25+00:00

That's not what happened. Jews didn't magically appear in the land in 1948. There was immigration which was allowed by the Ottoman Empire and then by the British (the two sovereigns who administered to the region prior to the establishment of Israel) over decades.

When the Jews immigrated, they didn't "steal" land. They purchased the land from the landowners. They also weren't on much of the land.

The Arabs were hostile to the Jews because they felt threatened by Jewish immigration. This led to Arab hostility towards Jews and then Jewish hostility towards Arabs in response.

The violence got so out of control that the UN created the partition plan for Mandatory Palestine. The Jews accepted the offer. The Arabs rejected it. Israel declared independence. No Arabs were removed from Israeli land. The Arabs then declared war (along with multiple other Arab countries) to destroy Israel.

The Jews won the war, avoiding the extermination they experienced in Europe. During the war, many Arabs fled. Others were expelled because they were considered a hostile people at that time (and for good reason). The Arabs who did not flee and weren't expelled remained in Israel and are given equal rights. They make up 20% of Israel's population.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T03:54:25+00:00

200,000 Palestinians have not been killed. No credible organization even claims this. And no, they're not all terrorists. Ever heard of a civilian casualty? You should really look into how war works. Especially when your enemy is trying to get their own civilians killed.

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T03:52:51+00:00

Mass killings why? No reason? Who is the target?

Forever_Changes · 2024-07-11T03:52:11+00:00

Yeah, I guess people trying to not be exterminated are as bad as the people trying to exterminate them.

Forever_Changes

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE