Chess960 is kind of a variant. It's also kind of a logical extension of chess which is aligned with the general evolution of chess.
Chess has always had rule changes. Anyone who says anything different doesn't know what they're talking about. And the rule changes usually have a compelling justification to improve the game.
For example, the bishop and the queen replaced the elephant and the minister. Why?
Because it created a more dynamic and exciting game.
Castling was added to chess. Why?
Because people realized that getting your king out of the center is usually a good thing to do, and connecting your rooks is usually a good thing to do. Allowing castling makes the game more exciting by allowing you to do both of these in one move instead of making the game more boring by requiring multiple moves. It also adds strategic depth by providing the king additional safety.
The pawn being able to move up two on the first move was added to chess. Why?
Because it makes the game quicker and more exciting. Now players don't have to take two moves to move their pawn up two.
En passant was added to chess. Why?
To fix the problem of the pawn moving up two negatively affecting the mechanics in a serious way. En passant is a compromise between the new rule (pawn move up two on first move) and the old rule (pawns can only move up one square, never two).
And now there's a new problem, one unique to the 21st century: computers are more powerful than they've ever been. To play chess at a high level requires intense opening preparation, usually with a computer.
So Bobby Fischer thought of a rule change to fix this modern problem. One that is pretty conservative, simple, elegant, and maintains the legacy of the old chess. Everything about the game is the same except the pieces on the back rank are randomized (with a few restraints) and a slightly expanded interpretation of castling (though the castling end positions are the same as in the old chess).
And a small note about castling: many people feel that the castling is weird, hard to remember, or doesn't feel right. But I'd argue that this is how people initially felt about en passant capturing. It's the one capture in chess that doesn't require a piece to land on the square of a captured piece. Both were added ad hoc to maintain the game while accommodating new rules.
So the rationale for chess960 is similar to the rationales used to justify previous changes to the game throughout history. If our ancestors could accept changes to the rules to improve the game, why can't we?
Chess has always had rule changes. Anyone who says anything different doesn't know what they're talking about. And the rule changes usually have a compelling justification to improve the game.
For example, the bishop and the queen replaced the elephant and the minister. Why?
Because it created a more dynamic and exciting game.
Castling was added to chess. Why?
Because people realized that getting your king out of the center is usually a good thing to do, and connecting your rooks is usually a good thing to do. Allowing castling makes the game more exciting by allowing you to do both of these in one move instead of making the game more boring by requiring multiple moves. It also adds strategic depth by providing the king additional safety.
The pawn being able to move up two on the first move was added to chess. Why?
Because it makes the game quicker and more exciting. Now players don't have to take two moves to move their pawn up two.
En passant was added to chess. Why?
To fix the problem of the pawn moving up two negatively affecting the mechanics in a serious way. En passant is a compromise between the new rule (pawn move up two on first move) and the old rule (pawns can only move up one square, never two).
And now there's a new problem, one unique to the 21st century: computers are more powerful than they've ever been. To play chess at a high level requires intense opening preparation, usually with a computer.
So Bobby Fischer thought of a rule change to fix this modern problem. One that is pretty conservative, simple, elegant, and maintains the legacy of the old chess. Everything about the game is the same except the pieces on the back rank are randomized (with a few restraints) and a slightly expanded interpretation of castling (though the castling end positions are the same as in the old chess).
And a small note about castling: many people feel that the castling is weird, hard to remember, or doesn't feel right. But I'd argue that this is how people initially felt about en passant capturing. It's the one capture in chess that doesn't require a piece to land on the square of a captured piece. Both were added ad hoc to maintain the game while accommodating new rules.
So the rationale for chess960 is similar to the rationales used to justify previous changes to the game throughout history. If our ancestors could accept changes to the rules to improve the game, why can't we?
