the geometric mind

chess ability is about the ability to remember patterns (chess openings and patterned tactics.

my proof of this truth is random chess.

whether it is old shuffle chess ( without castling ) or fischer ramdon chess ( with castling ), this is the true nature of chess without memory ( carlson, and other such great savants ).

to see a place of difficulty without memorized answers.

chess 960 is the future of chess.

960 also lives in a pattern but the patterns are so extensive that memorization is of no use.  no opening tree.  the mind of the engineer, the architect ( perhaps more than others ) or the mathematician, will always be better at 960 than the writer, the artist, the electrician, the welder, etc., for that is the nature of the board.

pattern recognization is the strength of 960 but not of memorization.

the 65th square is the intuitive geometric sight of chess 960.

in chess 960 the great players have both the architural vision and the intuitive vision at the same time.

as an ordinary chess player i am in the low, very low place.

but i see the true nature of chess.

What players know goes far beyond openings (as you've noted). 960 doesn't remove any of this (other than the basic pawn structures I suppose), but it does remove a player's ability to consistently and effectively set up an organized middlegame where there can be a full bodied fight. 64 squares and 32 pieces is too complex to penetrate with calculation (even for computers), so they will be forced to guess in the opening. Study adds depth. Not just to chess, but to anything. Art, sport, science, etc.
 

With 960 players will be forced to guess not only in the opening, but in the middlegame too. Why is this bad?  Because even studied amateurs are skilled enough to win a game with a good positional advantage alone (space, pawn structure, piece activity, etc). Yes, even if all the pawns and pieces are still equal they can effectively lose their games out of the opening. This is not just for GMs.
 

Perhaps this is appealing to unstudied players who will experience this often enough in their classical games. For them, the playing field would be leveled. This is true to some extent (you still have to combat all the middlegame and endgame knowledge of studied players) but to level it you've brought the game down, not up. You've largely removed the ability of the players to begin building from move 1 into a full bodied middlegame. You've removed the depth that's added through study.

in the end of my years and my decline from simple chess to barely recreational chess i have ossified into one opening, be it black or white, unless i am faced with white opening at k4.  i play only to defend my simple position and wait for my opponent to make a mistake.  they rarely do but when they overlook something i gain enough points to stay above 900.