chess vs chess 960 ratings

i'm sure this has been discussed before here, but i just wanted to ask some people's opinions.

i've only played a handful of chess960 (13 games), but so far i've noticed something a little interesting. i've won 9 of the 13 games and the majority of people i'm beating are rated much higher than me in regular chess.

are other's finding this as well? is it really that much of a difference simply because there's no opening theory? all i do in chess960 is to try and place my pieces on the most optimal squares. i really wouldn't think this would be that much more difficult for high rated players. perhaps i'm just better at adapting...?

So, you tried playing 960 ? Do I recall correctly that you were being rather scathing about it a couple months ago ?

I don't know, I always thought there was a fair amount of correlation. I drew this conclusion from the fact that I won the very first games of 960 that I ever played, and to this day I have won the great majority. And after all, the top players in 960 are at least near the top in regular chess, and the other way around. But I reckon that some people might be thrown off not so much by lack of openings theory but by unfamiliar middlegame positions. It may be that their openings repertoire in standard is very limited and so they only get to see a few typical middlegames where they know the common tactical motifs and positional ideas. They could get a pretty high rating like this (below master level) but when brought into an unfamiliar position they get lost.

i think you may have me confused with someone else. i've always enjoyed 960.

yeah this could be true as well. still though, in general i would think to put my money on the higher rated standard player even in 960

Oh I am sorry, it was someone else then.

I'm finding the opening in 960 is much more difficult. The principles that drive standard chess openings - e.g. pawns in the center, minor pieces controlling the center, castle the king to safety - don't necessarily work in 960 because there can be tactical threats on move one.

I hope that after a few more games, I will play as well in 960 as in standard.

Generally the opening principles should work, but you have to watch for tactics such as undefended pawns or pieces.

yeah this is very true. you should still be looking to place your pieces on optimal squares (pawns in the center, bishops on the long diagonals, etc.) but you really have to keep your eyes open for tactical plays. that's why i find it so exciting. depending on the set up, you can threaten mates in a few moves even if your opponent makes good moves. consider the following game of mine:

Here is a game of 960 I just played, I got a position a lot like the King's Indian and a pretty nice attack going:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=30865916

Btw, how do you post a diagram for 960 ?

It depends on how much a player depends on opening theory, DBs and books.

I use these a lot, so I very rarely get into trouble from an opening, but that crutch isn't there in 960, so it does make a big difference. if you are used to playing with your wits then you will be able to adapt to 960 quicker, thus negating a couple of hundred ratings points (perhaps).

There is strategy in 960 just as much as standard chess - as you point out, it is important to find good squares for your pieces, however the opportunity for tactical shots from the very opening may mean strategy has to take a back seat for a few moves until you get your position secured.

I think it would be more accurate to take tactics trainer ratings and online chess ratings on equal value when figuring out the strength of your opponent at 960.

i just repositioned the pieces. however, not sure if the castling would work (but i didn't castle in that game i posted).

yeah that's a good idea.