Fischer random chess seems to have much to recommend it. It removes the advantage of memorizing large numbers of opening book moves, and arguably injects more creativity and dynamism into the game.
One major problem is that it heightens the asymmetry in chess between the player who moves first and the player who moves second. Some randomly generated positions will strongly favour white.
An easy way to counterbalance that is to play each random setup twice, with the players alternating who plays as white. The problem with this is that it reverses the original advantage by too much. The first game will provide all sorts of chances to think about the unique characteristics of the random opening position. The person who plays white the second time has the advantage of all that information.
To be more fair, then, perhaps players should play four games based on two positions:
- Game 1: Random position one, player A as white
- Game 2: Random position one, player B as white
- Game 3: Random position two, player B as white
- Game 4: Random position two, player A as white
Even with a ‘chain’ of games like this, the balance between the players still isn’t perfectly fair. One of the starting positions might offer more of an advantage to white than the other one does. For instance, position one might randomly be the ordinary chess setup, while position two might be one that allows white to gain a strong early advantage.
The cost associated with playing Fischer Random / Chess 960 is that it allows some degree of luck to enter into chess – a game that it otherwise devoid of any element of random chance. That being acknowledged, it seems like the amount of luck introduced can be minimized through pairings like the ones above, and that the remaining fraction could be worth accepting as the cost of achieving the other benefits of Fischer Random chess.
I would be up for trying a four-game mini-tournament with someone, perhaps with 15 minute per side sudden death time controls.
