Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Keeping thread efficiency: if Gifford objects, this fitting one-comment
topic will be moved. In 2006 Gifford found the best link to Fischer here for context. Now in 2010 ChessBase promises follow-up article on Gary Kasparov's
view of F.R.C., so let's get ready. Asked about chess variants this week,
Kasparov admonishes not to throw out the baby with the bath water:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113. Kasparov adds
moderately never to go overboard at all. He says above 10 or 15 or 20 arrays will serve and have to last each one a year, whilst Winther
recommends more like 25:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24878, http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24984.
Nietzsche says G. is dead, and God says N. is dead: whose elevation is whose degradation? Kasparov
is nigh to seeing in Fischer Random: (a) the wave (b) the crave (c) the
save (d) the rave (choose one) -- all conveniently overlooking Knave Robert
Fischer's wayward antics.  Who's quibbling? F.R.C. is #10 at the Next
Chess project in harmonic convergence. Chess Base still responsibly
attributes it to Fischer, unlike many Chess Variantists do correspondingly
when proliferation beckons re-works of others' old material.  Will it
last? Will not the Kasparov 10 become Kasparov Random Chess? In Random Chess,
never mind Alexandre in the 1820s; Fischer created the revival 15-20 years
prescient. To knowledge Fischer never weighed in on any other C.V. the ways Reshevsky, Capablanca, Lasker, Bird, and Philidor did.

Upcoming Chessbase article will explain Kasparov's randomizing views:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6113. Count on it. Herein
Winther recommends 25 Fischer Random arrays from the 960 two decades back.
If Kasparov enunciates 10 starting line-ups for one a year, hopefully he
will entitle to ''Kasparov Random Chess.'' That is a big leap from 960
to 10 and justified. No one has else whittled it down that way so far.
Well, arguably around 1920 Lasker whittled it down to two including
RBNQKNBR in a book. Capablanca and Lasker saw their present predicament
coming, and they had different solutions.

Arguably, Kasparov's suggestion has a drawback to it. The positions in Chess960 are all strategically inferior to the standard position. Thus, they are not very interesting to study theoretically, although they are fun to play in randomized games. I contend that it's better to pick non-mirrored positions, e.g. positions from my Multi-chess:
http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/chess/chess57.htm
(the players in turn swap, firstly, the king, secondly, the queen (pieces needn't be mirrored, bishops not on same colours, rooks and knights may not be relocated).
/Mats

Twelve-year-old Canadian Pranav Sharma beat grandmaster Shirov this week. 
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6132
Excuse: jet lag. Among the simul boards were 9 Draws, perfectly
understandable and agreeable in this day and age. [Karoly Szalay beat Shirov too, but that is not so significant for Szalay's being 16 years old.] However, what about the
other 25 losers? Are only super-Grandmasters entitled to rationalize? Each
of 26 should be permitted offering reasonable explanation for the outcome.
You name it. Mitigating circumstance might be any number of things.
Possible alibi for one or another may be shown in having sustained a ski
injury, or been working crossword puzzle, lighting at the table, had check delayed, to face an
examination tomorrow, or just gotten indigestion or seen recent visit from
a prodigal aunt. Anyway, instead of simuls by Grandmasters religiously all
the time, like handing out communion, why not play blindfold versus sighted
for a change, or give odds of Pawn or Knight for advantage, as in day of
Philidor or of Alexandre or Morphy or Bird.

So you would recommend non-mirrored positions in Next Chess ranked #9
Schoolbook too? That is, Schoolbook as representing as well all the
Capablanca Random Chess arrays. For practical purpose and interest,
eventually there should be far fewer arrays than 960 or the thousands of Capablanca 
Random Chess. Consensus is on need to whittle any of these somehow logically to 10, 25, 50. Specific (flexible)
Schoolbook(#9) is chosen for Trenholme's studies and many games played.
Now Fischer Random and Schoolbook are back to back at #9 and #10 among the
Next Chess 23 CVs. Also, could Bifurcators(#1) in general work as well or be
acceptable on 8x10 boards? Thus far most are on the 68 squares, but a
handful already 80. Never yet stated: Next Chess could be about the board
more than the CVs. If we select 80, to near exclusion of all the other normal ''enlargements,'' we could see obsessive narrow 64 squares ovetaken a lot faster. To the extent any Next Chess topics are about boards, are there any experiments on less than 64? Not seriously. Clearly old standby 64 is already rock bottom minimum. The so-called expansions -- which should actually be considered normalizations and correction of longstanding error -- are 95% among the certain 68, 80, 81 and 100 spaces.  All four choices trend towards or reach regional Japanese 81 and Chinese 90, closing once and for all a ridiculous wide discrepancy.  Yet favourably anticipated is ''Kasparov Random Chess'' of 64 under development, promised as it is to be about either chosen 10 or 15 opening positions. In all, Fischer Random should be thought of as the CV of the past decade the Aughts 2000-2009.  Keeping an open mind, Kasparov's 10, Kasparov Random, would be another fine way to update still once again Alexandre's variable back-rank opening set-ups from the 1820s.   However, contrary to that, if non-mirrors are going to be more effective there instead in a starter ''schoolbook-64'' CV, they should also be transferred to its cousin for all the 400 years, Carrera-Capablanca-Schoolbook-80 ''Random'' Chess for perfect correspondence.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=24929

I don't think Kasparov's suggestion is randomized. He wants to allow
room for theory studies. Schoolbook, or any other form of 8x10 chess, does
not suffer from insufficient strategical or tactical variety. So
non-mirrored positions aren't needful. Bifurcator pieces would be suitable
for any board size, because they are close to the bishop in feel. Some
bifurcator pieces are quite good, but it's not likely that they will
become popular. These are experimental pieces that are interesting to the
mathematically minded.
/Mats

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6967, Carlsen turned 20 years old, so now they talk about, ''At the beginning of his career....'' Or is it ''....at the beginning of his career''?

Cheating: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7791 and
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7807.

Part 3 today, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7811.

Is this a C. variant? Http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7955.
Self-Block, self-pin, http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7935, there is increasing symbolism and semi-conscious metaphor at the establishment of their having boxed themselves into positions there is no way out but relinquishment. To put it comfortably in another old problem having adequate solution, problem themes only started at Chessbase in earnest about a year ago, though they far pre-date F.i.d.e. and world champion cycles and elos.

Transference of sovereign right to the championship,
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7985, or something like
that; whoever reads it first rather than skim can explain.