[HN Gopher] Not all Chess960 positions are equally complex
___________________________________________________________________
Not all Chess960 positions are equally complex
Author : MaysonL
Score : 54 points
Date : 2026-01-23 02:27 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (arxiv.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org)
| __s wrote:
| > indicates a slight tendency for White to face harder opening
| decisions
|
| supporting the quip "the hardest game is to win is a won game"
|
| Not surprised at end re classical position not being the most
| even configuration. In that configuration bishops & knights
| practically start aimed at controlling center, so there's little
| awkward properties to dampen White's initiative. One of the rooks
| even get to castle out of the corner
|
| Chess960 would be better if they just got rid of castling in it,
| tho wouldn't be surprised if that makes for certain positions
| getting even worse for Black
|
| See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26066844 for
| thought on game theory of strategy when playing perfect is
| computationally infeasible
| copper4eva wrote:
| I can't say for 960 specifically, but for standard chess
| getting rid of castling usually results in the players just
| manually castling their kings. I believe that is why the move
| was introduced in the first place. So it really doesn't
| accomplish much except make the opening a bit more limited,
| since they have to leave themselves a way to manually run the
| king over one of the rooks. Usually to the short side, since
| that's quicker. Basically makes queen side much less viable to
| leave the king at. And queen side castling was already the
| rarer of the two options. I imagine it would be a similar story
| for a lot of 960 positions. I'm not sure how getting rid of
| castling would benefit anything. In 960 you already get a lot
| of super crazy aggressive positions with exposed kings even
| with castling.
| kibwen wrote:
| _> I can 't say for 960 specifically, but for standard chess
| getting rid of castling usually results in the players just
| manually castling their kings._
|
| The entire design of 960 is backwards when it comes to
| castling, because it was deliberately designed to facilitate
| castling. This is the whole reason there are "only" 960
| positions, as opposed to 2880 positions if our only
| restriction is that bishops are on the opposite color (and
| that both sides are symmetric). By reifying castling as
| something that _must_ exist rather than a gross and
| unfortunate hack to paper over the flaws of the standard
| chess position, the ruleset puts the cart before horse.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Chess960 would also be better if both sides were asymmetrical
| and there were novel positions for both players in every game.
|
| I go to a chess event 2-3 times a month in the city where I
| live, and there are a few of us that are big into variants and
| play a lot of Bughouse, Crazyhouse, Racing Kings, etc. 960 is a
| bunch of fun but asymmetrical 960 is a blast, and asymmetrical
| Bughouse 960 / Crazyhouse 960 is the most fun and hard version
| of chess I've ever played. There is no theory, just pure
| tactics and reaction.
| indoordin0saur wrote:
| Probably many asymmetrical combinations are unfair to black.
| Maybe running through combinations and simulated games with a
| chess engine could identify ones that are fair, asymmetric
| and fun? Then a database could be built up of these
| combinations and it could be randomly selected to start your
| game.
| __s wrote:
| Similar idea is randomized openings. Checkers does this
| already. TCEC does chess AI tournaments using sharp
| preselected openings (matchups playing 2 games, one of each
| color)
| mr_wiglaf wrote:
| From my understanding that is exactly what this group are
| doing: https://chess960v2.com/en
| billforsternz wrote:
| Maybe there are asymmetrical combinations that actually
| give Black the advantage? Because Black's setup is nicely
| harmonious and White's is clumsy. Or maybe not I'm entirely
| unsure.
| nilslindemann wrote:
| > Chess960 would also be better if both sides were
| asymmetrical and there were novel positions for both players
| in every game.
|
| Yes! I never understood why people are so much into Fischer
| Random when there is also e.g. Benko's Pre Chess, where the
| players just place their pieces on the first and eight rank
| at the start of the game. Every player can decide to break
| the symmetry or not. They can even set up the normal chess
| position if they desire to do so. But for some reason today
| only Fischer Random is played, probably because Fischer was
| more famous than Benko. But Benko's version is more elegant,
| the players have full control and there are more start
| positions.
|
| https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess960-chess-
| variants/pal...
| nilslindemann wrote:
| Also interesting: Start with an empty board and let the
| players place their pieces and pawns however they want in
| their half of the board, as long as the piece does not
| attack an enemy piece.
| thatfunkymunki wrote:
| interesting that the most balanced one is extremely similar to
| the default, which is not so:
|
| > \\#198 (\texttt{QNBRKBNR})is the most balanced, with both
| evaluation and asymmetry near zero... Remarkably, the classical
| starting position-despite centuries of cultural selection-lies
| far from the most balanced configuration.
| copper4eva wrote:
| That formation is pretty close to the standard position though.
| Just swaps a Queen and Rook. It puts the Queen in the corner, a
| less aggressive position with less options to develop. I've
| only played a little 960, but these queen in the corner
| positions seem to often lead into more closed positions.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Yeah, agree, but in the setup you mentioned, 1.b3 and 1. b4
| are both strong moves, because it basically forces the game
| to develop kingside from the get-go.
|
| Seems the opening can get really sharp, or basically a race
| to bunker via 1.Nf3
| ummonk wrote:
| They've defined memorization complexity as having to memorize the
| best out of almost equally good moves (as opposed to being able
| to play the best move without memorization because it is so
| obvious.
|
| In reality it's almost the other way around. Because white
| usually has several good moves at every point, they can just
| memorize one of them, while black needs to memorize how they'll
| respond to every good move white could make.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Ironically the starting position that I've found to be the most
| balanced for black and white is just swapping the starting square
| of the bishops and knights.
|
| It turns normally-sound opening moves like 1.d4 and 1.e4 into
| liabilities and emphasizes the knights as blocking material to
| occupy squares like d2 and e2 , but the tradeoff is that a early-
| developed bishop can get a lot more active centrally via an open
| wing.
|
| Such a layout makes for a very cautious opening phase where
| neither side really feels comfortable giving up much material.
| Really a fascinating setup.
| firasd wrote:
| I've been analyzing classic "romantic" games using Stockfish with
| multipv (showing the top 4-5 lines rather than just the best
| move)
|
| 1. Morphy vs. Duke of Brunswick (The Opera Game)
|
| https://lichess.org/study/xAo78qLb/truC6WoM
|
| 16. Qb8+.
|
| This is viewed as Morphy doing a stylish Queen sacrifice
|
| But if you look at the MultiPV:
|
| Qb8+* leads to forced mate.
|
| Qc3 or Qb7 drops the advantage significantly.
|
| Qb5 actually allows equality
|
| If he had played anything else, he would have been imprecise. It
| wasn't a gamble
|
| 2. D. Byrne vs. Fischer (Game of the Century)
|
| https://lichess.org/study/UZlSqSLA/Ku9M59je
|
| Fischer plays 17... Be6, leaving his Queen hanging.
|
| Standard narrative: "Fischer offers his Queen for a mating
| attack!"
|
| Engine reality: 17... Be6 is the correct move. Trying to save the
| Queen actually loses the advantage.
|
| Byrne taking the Queen (18. Bxb6) was a massive blunder. The
| engine actually wants Byrne to ignore the Queen and trade off
| Fischer's Knight on c3. He ends up with a Queen stranded on a3, a
| total spectator
| TZubiri wrote:
| This is a common theme, gambits are such depending on what your
| level and calculation depth is.
|
| The queen's gambit opening (almost inarguably a gambit as it is
| part of a well accepted name of a second move), really isn't a
| gambit in the sense that you can always recover the pawn,
| however it is a gambit in the sense that you temporarily give
| it up.
|
| If we were particularly short sighted, no doubt, responding to
| an early white bishop threat on g5 or b5 with a knight on f6 or
| c6 would look like a gambit, as we are sacrificing the knight,
| but lo and behold, we regain the minor piece afterwards with
| xf6 or xc6!
|
| The distinction would be whether the gambit or sacrifice is
| solid or refutable. But it is in both cases a sacrifice.
| Trufa wrote:
| Most of the times they mean the amazement of just even
| considering that move a couple of moves ahead and not
| discarding that branch.
|
| But yes, a true gambit could be considered something that's
| objectively bad, but humanly makes sense.
| reassess_blind wrote:
| Qb8+ is a fairly obvious mate in 2. I don't think anyone views
| it as a gamble.
| firasd wrote:
| Right. So I guess that's my quibble with the term sacrifice
| (shared by Rudolf Spielmann)
|
| But what's interesting to me is the counterfactual like
| outside of these 3 queen moves he would have lost the entire
| advantage. So it was like a tactical shot like capturing the
| golden snitch in Harry Potter
| reassess_blind wrote:
| Sure, I get what you're saying. It's still a sacrifice, but
| the compensation is just mate in 2, so the there's no real
| "sacrifice" here.
|
| That being said, any sacrifice that doesn't guarantee a
| better (or at least equal) position isn't a sacrifice
| either, it's just "hope chess", aka a bad move. In Blitz or
| Bullet you can make the case for a "bad" sacrifice for
| positional complexity and putting time pressure on your
| opponent to make accurate defensive moves.
|
| In the Opera game, Black just played a poor game start to
| finish. Giving up the bishop for the knight, pushing the B
| pawn while the king wasn't castled.
| le-mark wrote:
| I had two "brilliant" moves in one chess.com game today.
| One was a bishop sacrifice that would have led to mate in
| three. The other was a queenside castle that the engine
| wanted me to do sooner. I suck at chess, although I did see
| the bishop sacrifice as the right move. The engine rated me
| at 1500 for the game.
| TZubiri wrote:
| "Remarkably, the classical starting position-despite centuries of
| cultural selection-lies far from the most balanced
| configuration."
|
| Right, balance would be one of many parameters that make a game
| popular. Complexity is even a positive aspect of a game, a simple
| game with a simple optimal strategy would not be the most
| popular.
|
| Simplicity of rules is another parameter, the classical
| configuration is somewhat symmetrical on the Queen King axis,
| many candidates would provide a rather asymmetrical and hard to
| remember initial configuration.
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| I can't get myself to enjoy chess960. So much of my understanding
| of the game comes from pattern recognition and familiarity with
| concepts (e.g. This structure is basically a reverse carlsbad,
| black should play for the minority attack, white has to get a
| kingside attack rolling and the knight to e5)
|
| 960 is disorienting
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-27 10:01 UTC)