Evans On Chess. August 2, 1996. Copyright Chesstours. All rights reserved.

                             FISCHER RANDOM CHESS

"The old chess is too limited. Imagine playing cards, blackjack for example, 
and every time the dealer has the same starting hand you have the same 
starting hand. What's the point?" Thus spake Bobby Fischer in launching Random 
Chess at a press conference in Argentina this summer.

He quipped that rising stars such as Anand, Kamsky, Kramnik and Gelfand all 
wear thick glasses due to long hours spent in front of computer screens. 
Nowadays, Fischer complained, the study needed to excel at conventional chess 
has made it hard and boring work, whereas he got into chess to avoid work and 
have fun! 

By starting from 960 possible positions picked at random by computer, this
radical proposal places creativity and talent ahead of memorization and 
preparation by wiping out book knowledge. The pawns stay the same while eight 
men are shuffled on the back row to start each game with a fresh lineup.

Yet throughout the ages chess was considered a supreme test of skill precisely 
because each game began the same way -- unlike cards which depend on luck of 
the draw.

"Chessplayers have become slaves to computers and books," said Fischer. But 
the irony is that he uses computers to save chess from the onslaught of 
computers.

Another world champ was also past his prime when he pushed for new rules. To 
combat the "draw death" of chess, Jose Capablanca advocated enlarging the 
board and adding a new piece. His idea died, and Random Chess may suffer the 
same fate.

At his first public appearance in four years, Fischer also blasted Batsford 
Publishing for their "unauthorized" new edition of his classic MY 60 MEMORABLE 
GAMES. He accused British grandmaster John Nunn of malicious changes in the 
body of the work, and alleged that royalties weren't paid.

"It ain't so," said a Batsford spokesman. "All we need is for Bobby to tell us 
where to send royalties. He knows this but hasn't supplied the information."

In response to my query, John Nunn noted: "The sequence of events was that 
Batsford contacted Fischer (through an intermediary) to ask how he wanted the 
royalties for the new edition paid. The response was a letter from Fischer's 
lawyers. Batsford explained the details of how they acquired the rights to the 
book, and so far that is the end of the story.

"However, so far as I can see there have been no changes to the intellectual 
content of the book, either by subtraction or addition. Only one piece of 
analysis was changed, and that was because a mate in four had been overlooked 
in the original book. Quite honestly, I cant see any grounds at all for 
complaint. I'm sending you a copy so that you may judge for yourself."

I compared the two editions. Nunn merely fixed some errors and added extra 
diagrams while converting to algebraic notation. As Fischer's collaborator on 
the original, I can attest that this edition is better!
