http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960Quote from omegapoint:
You mean to say he proposed to alter the opening arrangement of pieces? Of course theres a finite number of arrangements the back row can be shuffled into too which just brings you full circle to that aspect of the reinvented game becoming as rote as Fischers proposal of openings having become ...for super computers.
Yeah, it will eventually get back to the same problem, but it would take a long time. Hundreds of years of opening theory would be non-consequential.
"Inexperienced" meaning a weakish Grandmaster, say with a rating of FIDE 2550. The odds of a player of that caliber beating a world class grandmaster in the FIDE 2750+ range is relatively small. His expected score is something like 2.5 in 10.If this inexperienced player can upend the grandmaster than its only because the inexperienced players, esp. a studied inexperienced player, which is a bit of a contradiction, game was superior to the grandmasters. You can't go around saying you were upended for very long. I wouldn't jump too quickly at a conclusion regarding the merits or not of the games openings
being too well understood. Does it foul the games creativity? That presupposes what the game is meant to be, and who but Fischer would have the hubris to propose to be that arbiter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system