- Was this your first experience playing Fischer Random chess? If not,
please describe your previous experience.
Steve Ryan: “I have had one previous game of FR, by
e-mail with a fellow member of the IECC, but not as an official IECC game (see
more in #6 below).”
IM Eugen Demian: “Yes, this definitely was my first
time playing Fischer Random. One evening some time ago (right after coming to
Vancouver in 1994) I saw a guy on the beach playing Target Chess with
bystanders. That chess variant made a weird impression on me (didn't do much
more than watching) and somehow made me stay away from any similar variants,
Fischer Random included.”
- What is your impression of FR chess? Both participants are experienced
cc players ... how would you compare FR with regular chess?
Steve Ryan: “I like FR very much and consider it the
equal of traditional chess in every respect. I am not sure why the opening
position of a standard chess game has evolved the way it has. Perhaps it
supplies the greatest amount of "symmetry", with the pieces and pawns
for both B & W on the same squares directly opposite each other, and
thereby also provides some "aesthetic value". Everything looks so
nice and tidy at the start of a standard chess game, but perhaps not in a FR
opening.”
IM Eugen Demian: “Fischer Random seems interesting
enough for me to try it again later on. In general you use the same concepts,
plus strategical and tactical motifs; the only difference from regular chess is
the unexplored territory of openings where you have to be creative...”
- One claimed advantage for FR chess is that is throws the players on
their own from move one and nullifies opening theory and giant databases. Any
comments?
Steve Ryan: “ I agree with this statement, at least to
some degree. FR has over 900 legal starting positions, one of which we already
know quite well. If you took the starting position that Eugen and I had and
arbitrarily called it FR-1 (or something similar), I expect that FR-1 would
eventually develop an opening repertoire as large as the standard opening,
given time. Then you could develop similar opening repertoires for FR-2 to
900+. An estimate published not so long ago in "Reader's Digest"
quoted 25x10 to the 115th power as the number of possible ways of playing any
40 move game of standard chess. Though I am not an expert on game theory and
the mathematics involved in this area of study, if you have a further 900+
starting positions, would you not then have 900x25x10 to the 115th as the
number of possible ways of completing a 40 move game from all the legal FR
starting positions? I don't know. I hope somebody does. Now you will realize
that of those 25x10^115 possible ways of playing a 40 move standard opening
game, you will have to discard many of them as "ridiculous"; as it
would have to involve moves like capturing a pawn instead of a Queen. So the
number of "sensible" or "practical" ways becomes something
less than this value, but by how much I have no idea.”
IM Eugen Demian: “It definitely makes the game exciting
from move 1, that's for sure! Play any opening you want in regular chess and
10-20 moves or more are well known around the World. In Fischer Random the
focus shifts from transpositions, obscure lines and novelties into innovations
and discovery. It nullifies giant opening databases, but opening theory still
helps when doing pattern recognition.” “My good friend Marius
Ceteras had a good laugh when he saw our on-going game. He said that probably
Stevie doesn't know the fact that I play "crazy" positions even
without the aid of Fischer Random. According to him I swam in familiar
waters.”
- What do you think of FR chess ... is it as good a game as regular
chess?
Steve Ryan: “Yes. See #2 above. ”
IM Eugen Demian: “I think Fischer Random is as good as
regular chess. The only difference in the start up position does not make one
variant superior to the other. It is not as popular as regular chess, but this
is more because of human stereotype combined with the complexity of the game.
Probably thousands of people say: 'why should I try chess variants when I
cannot play regular chess properly.'”
- During the game a question came up about the correct method of castling.
In the similar Transcendental Chess the castling move was simply discarded.
What do you think about how it is handled in FR chess?
Steve Ryan: “I am not familiar with Transcendental
Chess so will not comment on it, but FR castling seems OK to me. I suggest the
players keep a copy of the "before and after" castling tables to
ensure no mistakes. ”
IM Eugen Demian: “Castling rules in Fischer Random feel
artificial to me. Somehow I believe the originators remained stuck with the
idea of allowing castling (from regular chess) and came up with this
complicated method. In our game for example we already had our Kings placed in
a castling position from the beginning. The only inconveniences were the Q-side
Rooks on both sides. I do not believe this was such an insurmountable problem
to impose castling the way it is possible in the rules. I castled to activate
my Rook and had to move my King back where it was at the beginning for
prophylactic measures. I would have preferred no castling allowed at all and
each player to be creative in activating his/her pieces.”
- To my knowledge this was the first "live" coverage of FR chess
on the Internet, at least as played here (as a cc game). Can you add any
observations about the history of the game on the Internet or as a form of cc
chess?
Steve Ryan: “The IECC had a section devoted
to FR at one time and maintained separate ratings for this category. NOST also
had a FR section, if memory serves, and may still have one. The IECC FR section
got dropped due to lack of participation, whatever that says about this form of
the game. Some time after it did, I advertised for a FR partner within the IECC
and one fellow replied. As far as I know however, The Campbell Report has done
the first live coverage of a FR e-mail (CC) game.”
IM Eugen Demian: “I do not know much about Fischer
Random on the Internet or as a form of cc. I have had the chance to read about
the Fischer Random match between FIDE GMs Michael Adams and Peter Leko in
New in Chess 5/2001, but nothing else.”
- Do you foresee a future for FR chess in either OTB or cc format?
Steve Ryan: “I have the feeling for some reason that if
FR ever "comes into its own" it will happen by CC as opposed to OTB.
CC players seem more innovative to me while our OTB kin have done little more
to add novelty to the game other than tinkering with time rules.”
IM Eugen Demian: “Fischer Random will exist as long as
regular chess will exist. I doubt players will start playing more Fischer
Random just to try new things, as there still are a lot of uncharted waters in
regular chess today. People in general are afraid of new stuff; this is one
reason a lot of players play the copycat role in regular chess, without even
understanding the reasons behind those moves/ lines. ”
- I heard a radio broadcast where R. J. Fischer said he would be willing
to play in public again, but it would have to be FR chess. He considers regular
chess as played out and boring. What do you think about that?
Steve Ryan: “I have mixed feelings about this statement
Franklin. If standard chess does indeed have 25x10^115 ways of playing a 40
move game I hardly think we have exhausted them all and will not likely do so
in anything but the most distant future. Chess probably has a longer lifetime
than the human race. But then we have teams of "experts" that help
the top GM's research openings 20 or more moves deep. I don't think standard
chess has become "played out" more than it has become predictable. As
for seeing a "born-again Bobby" come out of the woodwork to play, I
can take it or leave it.”
IM Eugen Demian: “Fischer was a chess genius created
from the same mold Morphy, Alehin, Tal and Kasparov came from. He has earned
the right to have opinions about chess; maybe I would consider chess boring too
if I would know it as Fischer does. That is a very big "if" of
course…”
- At this time, based on your experience with FR chess, would you welcome
an opportunity to play FR chess on a regular basis, or do you consider it an
exotic variant to be played only as a novelty?
Steve Ryan: “I would welcome a chance to play regular
FR games but at the same time I wouldn't abandon standard chess. Some of each
would suit me fine.”
IM Eugen Demian: “I wouldn't mind playing Fischer
Random tournaments in parallel with my regular chess games. Probably if ICCF
will consider organizing such tournaments, I am going to enter a few and enjoy
the experience.”
- Do you have any further comments to add concerning FR chess and/or your
experience playing this "live" game?
Steve Ryan: “Thank you for hosting this match. Eugen my
friend, I will not make another silly clerical error like I did this time. In
our eventual rematch I will turn you into an UFRO (Unidentified Flying Romanian
Object) and send you at warp speed straight out of the solar system (I
hope).”
IM Eugen Demian: “Playing the game live was a debut for
me. It adds a bit of pressure whether you want to admit it or not. Nobody likes
to make a fool of themselves in front of a crowd such is one on the Internet. I
have been a bit concerned in the opening, because it was critical to find the
proper setup from the original position. Even today I am not satisfied with the
one I came up with. From this point of view Fischer Random feels more
restrictive than regular chess, as some setups have to be bad in our case!
Fortunately Stevie was more concerned to move pieces into theoretically ideal
positions, regardless of the characteristics of our particular start position.
“Showing the game live as you did involves the web master a lot.
Definitely that chess server ICCF is talking about will make things easier, but
until then there are not enough human resources to carry something like this on
a daily basis.
“Franklin, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to play! This
experience might be useful some day to all of us. ”
|
