1. Is there any relation or any attempt at discovering a relation between Chess960 ratings and standard chess ratings? This can be for GMs, for (any)M's, for pro players, or for all players on lichess/chess.com (for whatever lichess/chess.com statistics are available), but preferably for as many categories/divisions/what you call it as possible.

I'm not saying there's necessarily a relation, but if there's been some hypothesis testing done and it's shown to have 'no evidence of relation', then I'd like to know the studies, please.

  1. What relation if any has been found?

From twitter account of FollowChess

When we ran this poll at the start of the 2019 World Fischer Random Championship, nobody gave 🇺🇲 Wesley So a chance. And yet, at the end of it all, it was Wesley who emerged as the champion! #frchess

enter image description here

  • 1
    @BCLC A good question. Personally I've often felt curious how strong this relationship is top GMs, and in particular who the strongest 960 players (now or ever) have been. – Mobeus Zoom Jan 20 at 16:29
  • 1
    It does seem to be clear that being good at standard chess is highly linked to being good at Chess960; even online tournaments which began open to everyone, or say, Titled players, have generally ended up seeing the familiar faces qualify (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…) and the most familiar faces win (Wesley So and Magnus Carlsen). – Mobeus Zoom Jan 20 at 16:32
  • @MobeusZoom thanks. though thinking further. i think it's kind of a weird question to ask for pro's. of course there will be a high correlation. i think it's more worth checking out the amateur's maybe. idk. or maybe at least for pro's we can ask about the precise correlation via the best fit line. idk. – BCLC Jan 20 at 20:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.