Fischer was right... (Standard vs 960)

Hi, I am Denis, from Uruguay. I am all a rookie in this of chess (only 3 years). I have never studied a book of chess, or openings, or something like that. I only play. I indeed read about the life of grand masters, like Capablanca and, my favorite, Robert Fischer.

I already have my opinion formed, but, I want to know what the chess community think: should 960 Chess replace the standard chess in official championships? I know many people have discussed that, but, what do the top players believe?

Nowadays, playing against a top player is as good as playing against a computer. And, if you want to offer some resistence, you must, also, play like a electronic device. Otherwise you will be lost in less than 10 movements. At least until movement 30, 40 or 50... As a result, a game between two top players is like seeing two computers playing one against the another. And, even if the computers didn´t exist, all top player have memorised thousands of movements played during the last 150 years. It is not a computer, but, for practical effects, is a database in your own hard drive (brain).

I would like to see how good that top players would be if 960 chess were the standard. No books, no hundred of memorised sequences, no databases... Just your brain, the board and your rival.

I know today championships of chess are a business, like in any other sport, game, whatever you call it. So, any reform must be thorougly studied, analysed and approved, and, of course, not only by the federation but for the sponsors.

But, despite all that, I believe that someone must be thinking in the future of chess. What about in ten years? Will only the best mathematically possible openings and moves be played in every game? Will the lack of memory the only difference between losers and winners?

I don´t mean I and only I am right, because of that I would like to hear other thoughts. Of course, this is not something new. Fischer foresaw all of this... and take into account that it was long before the super powerful computers and programs that exist today.

Thanks in advance to all.

Good Question...

I dont see 960 being the standard but maybe a side tournament or maybe they should have used 960 for the tiebreaks?? that would have been interesting

There's far too many variations and move options for something like that to happen. That's why after decades of the Ruy Lopez, master still find themselves in unexplored territory before the 20th move. Even if players only played opening with the highest computer evaluations for their pieces, the table can still turn quickly before the 20th move. Most openings will simply never be refuted. 

After Fischer lost his mind, he once said "The old game is dead. It's dead." He was simply wrong and just trying to make an argument for why 960 is better.

Fischer is my favorite player, but I will never embrace Chess 960. Too many rule changes for setting up the pieces and castling, based on which starting setup is used. Also, you need a computer to keep track of all the possible starting positions. Not practical, IMHO.

Fischer was wrong about so many things.

"1.e4 best by test." Nope. Stats prove that 1.d4 is better.

His politics.

Chess 960

I find Chess 960 really interesting and I think it kinda bursts sooner than usual chess.

People with high opening experience might be a bit close minded as to play 960, but IMO it is pretty much an enrichment of tactical and, why not, positional acquaintance.

Anyway, one must agree that not everything playable at regular chess is playable at 960.

Pieces are really messed up and castling is crazy.

Anyway, I enjoy it.

I hate opening theory and line memorization. So chess960 is pretty great for that. But I doubt it will ever replace traditional chess. People hate change, especially when it's as traditional as chess. Look at how long we've been going with classical time controls.