> \#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.
Seems the opening can get really sharp, or basically a race to bunker via 1.Nf3
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.
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.
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
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.
But yes, a true gambit could be considered something that's objectively bad, but humanly makes sense.
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
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.
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.
960 is disorienting
https://www.chess.com/news/view/2026-tata-steel-chess-round-...
I do the same with players who are to good to beat at a normal game.
__s•1w ago
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•1w ago
kibwen•1w ago
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•1w ago
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•1w ago
__s•1w ago
mr_wiglaf•1w ago
billforsternz•1w ago
nilslindemann•1w ago
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•1w ago