Some one feel free to surprise me, but I take it one cannot get TD credit for directing Fischer Random (Chess960) events. (I know the requirements are not in any sense rigorous, but no harm in asking.) Furthermore, they’re not even ratable as a major variant even with advance publicity, correct?
Real simple–might as well be a ping-pong referee.
That is not chess either.
Rob Jones
You can’t get credit for any unrated events, and yes, they are not ratable.
Alex Relyea
Thanks, it was only to be assumed.
Rob Jones, I might argue Fischer Random is more chess-like than chess itself because of the skills it promotes, but since you would rather compare it to ping-pong, I suspect we won’t even come remotely close to agreeing. Thanks for your response.
So, where do you have Chess960 events that are being played, ratable or otherwise?
ETA: Also, I started a thread once about a Chess960 option tournament, which would be played as a normal Swiss tourney, but if both players agreed, after pairings were assigned, they could play a game of Chess960 instead of Chess. I didn’t receive an official, definitive, ruling on the legality of such a thing, but the general consensus was that the Chess games played during such a tournament could be rated, just as they could for other multi-game events. However you have to make sure you adhere to certain rules. I could probably find the thread if that were an option you were interested in.
I was thinking of organizing my own at one of the clubs I attend. I need to keep my senior-TD status active, and frankly would prefer helping the USCF through FischerRandom events over anything else. But whatever; I can do regular chess too.
.
Opening theme tournaments are not real chess either, because they too do not start from the traditional start setup.
Yet the USCF has knowingly and happily rated several theme tournaments for decades.
.
Sure they do, it’s just that the first few moves are forced. Personally, it would not bother me if Chess960 was USCF-ratable, but the Delegates have not supported that.
Rob’s is very easy. Advance publicity: “Special variation: All USCF 5th Edition rules and supplement are deleted and to be replaced with the USATT Rulebook, which is available as a convenient PDF download from that site.” (And, tongue-in-cheek, I’d note that there seems to be separate US and International rules posted there. And that Table Tennis is part of the official USA Teams site, where chess… is not.) 
Gene’s is a little harder, as one needs to determine which opening shalt be used. 
I think crazyhouse, or atomic would be the better comparison for Chess960. Not necessarily bughouse, as rating that may be harder. But I suppose one could do it by manually entering the tournament and pairing one of each side against one of the other. :mrgreen:
A little more seriously, though, if you’re willing to go through the gyrations of actually publishing a set of house rule variations for Fischer Random and publicize them, why wouldn’t you be able to rate it?
Historically we’re very reticent about telling TDs, “You can’t rate that!”, but the system itself is very lenient towards allowing anything to be rated that a TD is willing to stick his or her neck out on. Given the first two responders above, the question needs to be, “At what point do publishing rules variations reach a level in which a TD should not be willing to rate the event?”
I think the difference is that Chess960 isn’t Chess. It’s a Chess variant. You can change time controls, pairing methods, prize distribution, how touch move is interpreted, or almost anything else in the rulebook, and still be playing Chess. Once you mess with the core rules, you end up playing a Chess-like game.
Thematics are kind of on the borderline, and The Powers That Be, apparently decided that they were just close barely on the ratable side of that border. With a thematic, you are playing Chess, but telling people that they have to make a specific set of moves first.
Another aspect is that luck should have no influence. If you run a “draw an opening out of a hat” tournament, you can’t rate it. I think the theory is that if you know you are playing in a French Defense tournament, you can decide whether or not to play. In a “draw from a hat” tournament, if you are rock solid in the Ruy Lopez, but weak in the Sicilian, and you draw Sicilian, you are starting out at a disadvantage due to a random event.
So while I advocate playing Chess960, rating it is a different matter.
There used to be a ratings database for Chess960 run out of Europe somewhere, but when the Mainz Classic shut down, I think a lot of Chess960 shut down with it. I went looking for the web page a year or so ago and couldn’t find it.
“Fischer Random Chess” (FRC, chess960) would be better if we discarded the ‘Random’ anyway.
One non-traditional start setup should be chosen (by FIDE or USCF) as a second standard setup, and left that way for a couple decades. This way we could watch a whole new set of opening theory develop from infancy. The ‘Random’ makes it so the openings always remain in infancy, which just is not as interesting.
With Fritz’ new “Let’s Check” feature, the whole world could collaborate in growing the new opening theory; even weekend amateurs.
Naming the new systems would need some attention.
Reuben Fine’s nine principles of chess opening play would finally be tested; and I believe at least one or two would fail the test and be understood not as true principles, but instead mere esoteric truths limited to the traditional setup with which they were devised. Oh the debates.
Home memorization of opening theory is not inherently a problem. Rather the extremes to which so-called opening theory has deeply penetrated into the middlegame phase is a problem. There is way too much duplication of moves among games stretching too far into the games. Variety delayed is variety denied.
Which ever non-traditional start setup would be chosen, it should:
- Not have any bishops starting on any corner square. As Kramnik noted, corner bishops have no choice in how they are developed, which is stifling, and which can lead to excessive exchanges.
- White’s two knights should start on squares of the same shade. This introduces new dynamics to knight play that are usually prevented by the traditional setup.
- Ideally the setup would lead to a higher percentage of opposite-wing castling for White and Black, than the tiny percentage we see from the traditional setup.
Presently, from the traditional setup, the following back rank can be achieved by legal moves (as in any other opening theme tournament), after 1. e3 e6:
a-h: RNBBKNQR (so-called “S#549”)
But we do not want to be stuck with having to play 1. e3 e6; which would immediately distort the discovery process for the new setup.
Discard the ‘Random’ from Fischer Random Chess!
Interesting idea, harmless and exceptionally practical.
People who play chess960 for the first time are surprised at how quickly they forget that it is not a traditional chess game. It takes only a few moves, and just feels like you are out of book.
.
I have found that chess and table tennis go together. The percentage of chess players who play table tennis is higher than that of non-chess players who play table tennis. And ditto if you reverse the two sports in that comparison.
One night, many decades ago in college, after I had played a lot of both on the same day, I dreamed that my table tennis opponent had hit a high shot to my left side, and I was a bishop so I could smash it back to his left side.
Bill Smythe
FWIW, I’m a 2100-rated chess player, and I also recently won a local university table tennis tournament. My peak was probably around a respectable 1600-rating, according to the competition I could maintain against local rated players.
In fact, the U.S. Table Tennis Association “imported” (swiped) the USCF rating system. This is because somebody in USCF, knowledgeable about ratings, was also on the board of USTTA. (Robert Karch, maybe?)
Bill Smythe
I have a copy of a rather odd chess book, The Even More Complete Chess Addict (London: Faber and Faber, 1987) by Mike Fox and Richard James. There’s a lot of material on boxers, musicians, philosophers, politicians, and so on who also play chess.
One very small picture has two guys playing doubles ping pong, and the caption says “World champs Tal and Petrosian (note the pawn in Tal’s hand – he was playing a chess and table tennis simul!)” Indeed, Pertrosian is returning a serve, while Tal, facing right, turns his head back to watch the action, paddle in left hand and pawn in right. Presumably, there’s a chessboard just out of sight.
Sorry, nothing in the book as to how they did, or how that variant was played!
(Back when I played hockey, I was a goalkeeper, and was encouraged to play table tennis to help develop faster reflexes. I even played a few games with the hockey mask on to get used to turning my head enough to keep sight lines open, but the other players thought that was too weird.)
Hey, I found the pic online!
Tal’s autobiography has that picture. 
It’s a great picture - thanks for finding and sharing it.
I was going to scan it and post it, but ran out of time before I had to leave town. I think Petrosian was playing a table-tennis/chess simul, if I recall the caption in the book properly.