Answers.Body: <p><strong>Pros</strong></p>
  <p>Most people don’t know the castling rules anyway</p>
  <p>Chess engines often struggle to castle effectively in games or recognize it as a move</p>
  <p>It would open the game up to beginners</p>
  <p>Comment: Somehow the world champion of the game (Wesley So) tried to castle out of check during a game of 960</p>
  <p><strong>Cons</strong></p>
  <p>It would be dwarfed by the largest followed chess variant of all time, causing its players to switch to 960 to be able to play more</p>
  <p>It’s an unnecessary change, liken it to changing the standard of math from pi to tau</p>
  <p>You would lose all the benefits that castling brings in the first place, such as shortening the process from 3-5 moves to one</p>
  <p>Castling opposite sides would no longer exist, and the kings would be slightly stuck in the center, leaving the edges of the board out of the game</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T08:30:03.013Z
Answers.Text: Why is castling on opposite sides important in chess 960? (I feel like "kings would be slightly stuck in the center" should be rather mentioned in the point before this one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T05:27:46.473Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-07-10T08:27:58.377Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-07-10T08:27:58.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Matthew
Answers.Body: <p>An obvious reason why chess 960 without castling doesn't make sense is that there would be no reason for it to be chess <em>960</em> any more.</p>
  <p>The reason it's called chess 960 is that there are exactly 960 permitted starting positions for each player that have bishops on opposite colours and the king between the rooks. But the only reason for the latter restriction is so that castling works.</p>
  <p>Therefore if you were going to remove castling from the game, for consistency you should also remove that artificial restriction and make it chess 2880.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-11T07:11:10.357Z
Answers.Text: Sure, but that's just a criticism of the *name* "chess 960 without castling". The new variant could be given a different name, or more than 960 positions could be considered.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-11T08:37:45.600Z
Answers.Text: @CyriacAntony it's not a criticism of the name so much as trying to remove castling without considering how that relates to the other rules. If the question had asked about "Fischer random chess without castling", I would still say "if you remove castling, you should also change the rules on which starting positions are permitted".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Especially Lime
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T20:17:54.260Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-07-10T20:17:54.260Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Especially Lime
Body: <p>Chess 960 is a popular chess variant that can be played on many platforms. All rules are standard, except the starting position is randomly generated. Some of these 960 positions give more than usual advantage to white. In some of these 960 starting positions, <em>the king is not really safe even after castling</em>.</p>
  <p>One big de-merit of chess 960 is the complicated castling rules. A case is made for chess without castling <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27147/14678">in this answer <strong>by Remellion</strong></a> (also, see other answers for the same question).</p>
  <p>So, why not kill two birds in one stone?
  <strong>What are the Pros and Cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?</strong><br />
  It may or may not take off. But, there are so many chess variants now. So, I don't see any demerit (see <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27172/14678">this answer <strong>of Jeorje</strong></a> for related comments).
  I have seen this suggestion in forums (<a href="https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-the-most-unbalanced-chess960-position#comment-54130780" rel="nofollow noreferrer">example</a>). But, <em>this variant is never made nor considered seriously to my knowledge</em> (e.g. currently, we cannot make this with make custom variant option of chess.com). To be fair, one could play this in existing chess 960 platforms by inserting some initial moves that manually moves all 4 rooks or 2 kings and then get back to the initial position (see the 1st position is <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27133/14678">this answer</a> for an example).<br />
  <strong>Why is not chess 960 without castling considered seriously?</strong></p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-09T05:14:38.753Z
Comments.Text: @People who voted to close this question, I would appreciate if some explanation is given as to why you find this an opninion-based question. I find it strange because [" Why isn't Chess960 the standard?"](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/22318/14678) and ["What are pros and cons around banning castling?"](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/27124/14678) are not deemed opinion-based.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-09T14:32:56.987Z
Comments.Text: recreational closing of anything that is interesting or somehow threatening is a curse of chess.se
Comments.UserDisplayName: Laska
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-09T15:35:35.427Z
Comments.Text: Can't you play without castling just by giving the starting board FEN without castling rights?
Comments.UserDisplayName: qwr
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T00:17:17.400Z
Comments.Text: I voted to close in the queue, on the grounds that the question required more focus. You are only asking one real question here.  There is a lot going on in the question that makes it a little hard to follow. The question structure, set itself up for a opinionated style discussion response. I am guilty of asking opinion based questions ( https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/33292/novelties-at-great-depth-are-they-worth-it), so there certainly no shade being cast.  SE just doesn't lend itself towards Discussion style questions/answers
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dheebs
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T00:22:48.600Z
Comments.Text: Note: have Edited to focus the question a little more. retracting my initial close vote.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dheebs
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2023-07-10T07:14:26.843Z
Comments.Text: @Dheebs, I understand your intention. But, many points made in the question were removed too. e.g. this was also removed erarlier: *In some of these 960 starting positions, the king is not really safe even after castling*.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Tags: <chess-variants><chess960>
Title: What are the pros and cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?
ThreadText: # What are the pros and cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-07-04)
  
  Chess 960 is a popular chess variant that can be played on many platforms. All rules are standard, except the starting position is randomly generated. Some of these 960 positions give more than usual advantage to white. In some of these 960 starting positions, *the king is not really safe even after castling*.
  
  One big de-merit of chess 960 is the complicated castling rules. A case is made for chess without castling [in this answer **by Remellion**](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27147/14678) (also, see other answers for the same question).
  
  So, why not kill two birds in one stone?
  **What are the Pros and Cons of introducing chess 960 without castling as a new chess variant?**  
  It may or may not take off. But, there are so many chess variants now. So, I don't see any demerit (see [this answer **of Jeorje**](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27172/14678) for related comments).
  I have seen this suggestion in forums ([example](https://www.chess.com/article/view/whats-the-most-unbalanced-chess960-position#comment-54130780)). But, *this variant is never made nor considered seriously to my knowledge* (e.g. currently, we cannot make this with make custom variant option of chess.com). To be fair, one could play this in existing chess 960 platforms by inserting some initial moves that manually moves all 4 rooks or 2 kings and then get back to the initial position (see the 1st position is [this answer](https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27133/14678) for an example).  
  **Why is not chess 960 without castling considered seriously?**
  
  **Tags:** chess-variants, chess960
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: @People who voted to close this question, I would appreciate if some explanation is given as to why you find this an opninion-based question. I find it strange because [" Why isn't Chess960 the standard?"](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/22318/14678) and ["What are pros and cons around banning castling?"](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/27124/14678) are not deemed opinion-based.  
  > **username_1**: recreational closing of anything that is interesting or somehow threatening is a curse of chess.se  
  > **username_2**: Can't you play without castling just by giving the starting board FEN without castling rights?  
  > **username_3**: I voted to close in the queue, on the grounds that the question required more focus. You are only asking one real question here.  There is a lot going on in the question that makes it a little hard to follow. The question structure, set itself up for a opinionated style discussion response. I am guilty of asking opinion based questions ( https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/33292/novelties-at-great-depth-are-they-worth-it), so there certainly no shade being cast.  SE just doesn't lend itself towards Discussion style questions/answers  
  > **username_3**: Note: have Edited to focus the question a little more. retracting my initial close vote.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3, I understand your intention. But, many points made in the question were removed too. e.g. this was also removed erarlier: *In some of these 960 starting positions, the king is not really safe even after castling*.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2023-07-10. Score: 3
  
  **Pros**
  
  Most people don’t know the castling rules anyway
  
  Chess engines often struggle to castle effectively in games or recognize it as a move
  
  It would open the game up to beginners
  
  Comment: Somehow the world champion of the game (Wesley So) tried to castle out of check during a game of 960
  
  **Cons**
  
  It would be dwarfed by the largest followed chess variant of all time, causing its players to switch to 960 to be able to play more
  
  It’s an unnecessary change, liken it to changing the standard of math from pi to tau
  
  You would lose all the benefits that castling brings in the first place, such as shortening the process from 3-5 moves to one
  
  Castling opposite sides would no longer exist, and the kings would be slightly stuck in the center, leaving the edges of the board out of the game
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Why is castling on opposite sides important in chess 960? (I feel like "kings would be slightly stuck in the center" should be rather mentioned in the point before this one.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2023-07-10. Score: 2
  
  An obvious reason why chess 960 without castling doesn't make sense is that there would be no reason for it to be chess *960* any more.
  
  The reason it's called chess 960 is that there are exactly 960 permitted starting positions for each player that have bishops on opposite colours and the king between the rooks. But the only reason for the latter restriction is so that castling works.
  
  Therefore if you were going to remove castling from the game, for consistency you should also remove that artificial restriction and make it chess 2880.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Sure, but that's just a criticism of the *name* "chess 960 without castling". The new variant could be given a different name, or more than 960 positions could be considered.  
  > **username_5**: @username_0 it's not a criticism of the name so much as trying to remove castling without considering how that relates to the other rules. If the question had asked about "Fischer random chess without castling", I would still say "if you remove castling, you should also change the rules on which starting positions are permitted".  
  
  ---
  
  