marvellosity: I do often find myself looking for openings within the starting arrangement that I can reach. Could I play a Sicilian here? If so, do the differences in the arrangement favour me or the opponent?

I guess it's only a matter of time before books on Chess 960 begin to appear including, perhaps, some opening principles -- even if not sequences and variations.  When you think about it, chess.com would be a wonderful place to launch an e-book on the subject.  I couldn't write it but perhaps one of our stronger players might make it a project.

But looking for Sicilian positions in 960?  It smacks of cheating and is bound to be written up in the forums, sooner or later.  It's almost as bad as studying end games.  

I like chess960. Means you don't have to worry so much about opening 'nuances' which can sometimes make normal chess hard work.

In the opening, I normally keep an eye out for structures I can recognise. Like what kind of central structure can I erect with the pieces aligned as they are? Or are my bishops in the corner in such a way that a fianchetto type setup looks more valid? Is there a 'problem piece' that I need to think about, in order that I can get a position where it can be developed?

I do often find myself looking for openings within the starting arrangement that I can reach. Could I play a Sicilian here? If so, do the differences in the arrangement favour me or the opponent?

     Or as pilot Chuck Yeager said, "These days I only buy ripe bananas".

TheDarkKnite: I would stick to medieval values, but I must also stick to modern values has well 

If I translate that into a comment on a chess player's age I guess I have to admit that my mediaeval years are long past.  Let's face it: as John Glenn said, there's still no cure for the common birthday. 

I would stick to medieval values, but I must also stick to modern values has well

skunkape:  normal chess is more fun 2 me

That's why my daughter says.  Except she calls it "real" chess and thinks anything else is a waste of time. 

You're probably both right, but as far as novelties go this has pretty good entertainment value.

normal chess is more fun 2 me

zankfrappa:   FZ, your confusion probably sums up what many of us experience and, I think, enjoy about Chess 960.  It's so different and the normal references somehow don't seem to apply.  They must do, of course and will eventually become more comfortable and familiar, but for now it's all very mysterious and surprising.

Tal's wood feels more like the Old Forest from Lord of the Rings; or like Aldous Huxley's "antipodes of the mind" where all manner of strange beasties dwell.

And for anybody who hasn't run across that particular quote of Tal's, he said, "You must take your opponent into a deep, dark forest where 2+2=5 and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."  The trouble is, you'd need a brain like Tal's to play that kind of chess.

Whiteywasere:  would love to learn this Fischer legacy... where do i start? Here, yeh, but any other good sites to look?

Whitey, welcome to chess.com.  I hope you enjoy your stay.  It's always good to meet another Oztralian on line.

Your question reminds me of an old episode of Midsomer Murders where a rather snooty, Catholic lay-woman said she had been giving a murder victim "instruction in the faith".  "Would that be the Catholic faith?" asked Jones.  "Young man," she said, "there is only one faith."

And in the same vein, though without the snootiness, I would say to you, "Whitey, there is only one chess site."  You've discovered chess heaven.

If you want to try a Chess 960 game send me a challenge. Because you're new, you'll probably need to send me a friend request first so you can get through my rating filter.

Yo, Dozy, Aussie Aussie Aussie... just starting my journey.... would love to learn this Fischer legacy... where do i start? Here, yeh, but any other good sites to look?

       Dozy, I actually like castling in chess960, the moves really run the gamut.
I definitely have problems with the opening, especially the pawn movements.
I create so many holes with my pawns the board looks like a fine slice of Swiss
Cheese.  Also, I don't really know what part of the board to control, even though one is still supposed to control the center I find that difficult to accomplish at times.  Tactics tend to be my strength so the middlegame favors me, I am 8-0 so far at chess960 but I doubt that will last.  I find instead of going out fast it may be best to let your opponent make the mistakes instead, as we're all in uncharted territory pretty quickly, kind of like the Tal quote about 2+2=5 and one path out of the deep, dark woods.  As far as positional play I don't have a clue because position to me is all relative, and pieces aren't where they
should be.
       Anyway, standard chess is here to stay, but chess960 is a nice change of
pace and has its merits.  I still think 10x10 chess would be the best variant because it could really open up the board, increase spectacular moves, and reduce the importance of openings.

neoliminal:  I, too, found castling to be rather unseemly in Chess960, so I changed the rules.  The result was Chess480...

Why not?  Every man his own innovator. Maybe we could divide Chess 960 by demetrios18 (he whose comment started us on this tangent) and come up with Chess 55.3.

It rather reminds me of a guy I met in my beginner days who insisted that, on your first move, it was legal to push both the a- and h-pawns one square simultaneously.  When I couldn't convince him otherwise I countered by pushing my b- and g-pawns one square each.  When faced with a pair of maurauding bishops on the long diagonals he soon saw the error of his ways. 

I, too, found castling to be rather unseemly in Chess960, so I changed the rules.  The result was Chess480 where the King (normally) moves 2 spaces when castling.  The only exception is when he is in the corner.  This seems much more in keeping with the standard FIDE rules, and most people seem to like it better.

The name comes from the fact that with this system of castling, although there are still 960 starting positions, 480 are mirror images from a tactical point of view.  In this way you can see that it is a simplified castling system. :)

SCUprodigy13:  I personally find that my greatest difficulty with 960 is that i find myself in complicated and completely foreign positions compared to the complicated positions in regular chess that have similar structures...

To anybody who hadn't played 960 that wouldn't make much sense, but I agree 100%.  And I don't yet understand why.

DeepGreene:  I find it more challenging than chess1, but I still like it.

Me too.  I sometimes find myself taking the lazy approach and in those games I tend to get into trouble.  Lazy, as in, not analysing the position deeply enough.  I guess that applies to a lot of my regular games as well.

I find it more challenging than chess1, but I still like it.  Maybe one thing explains the other.  I do ok if I don't make a botchery of my opening, but that does tend to happen quite often, sadly.

I personally find that my greatest difficulty with 960 is that i find myself in complicated and completely foreign positions compared to the complicated positions in regular chess that have similar structures as some of the games i have played in the past.  I attribute this mostly to playing the same opening hundreds of times and i actually enjoy the difficulty of finally seeing a completely new position; something that seems to be becoming more and more rare in my regular chess these days.

demetrios18:  chess 960 is not chess, and it has different rules than the original chess, there is no castling, and no Enpassate as I learned from my first loss in 960 and never will play again.

Sorry you had a bad experience, Demetrios. 

The good news is that castling is definitely allowed although sometimes it's a bit spectacular.  The usual rules apply (nothing between your king and rook, neither can have moved, and no castling into or through check) then just move your king to it's normal K-side or Q-side castled square and the rook will leap into position.  I'm not completely sure that's the whole of the castling rule but that's as much as I've worked out in my 30 or so games. 

The first time I saw an opponent move his king from one side of the board to the other (I think it had been on c8 and when he castled it leapt to g8) I was kinda startled.  It surprised me as much as Nighty's flash-bang attack (diagram above).

I'm equally sure en passant is allowed.  There may have been a computer glitch, of course, but I just played through your game with Catalyst and couldn't see any position where pxp e.p. was possible.

One man's fish is another man's poisson (sorry stoker) and Chess 960 isn't going to suit us all but, to paraphrase Sancho Panza's song in Man of La Mancha , "I like it; I really like it."

chess 960 is not chess, and it has different rules than the original chess, there is no castling, and no Enpassate as I learned from my first loss in 960 and never will play again.

I guess that's the ultimate appeal, Gert-Jan.  I've had people tell me, a little disparagingly, that it's not "real" chess; but it's not another form of fairy chess, either.

I like it because of the totally unsuspected situation you find yourself in.

edit: i meant expected situation.

Math_Magician:  Here is my main rule for 960 chess - go directly to the middle game.

LOL