The changes in chess concern the perfection of computers and the break — Fischer random chess

"I love chess, and I didnt invent Fischer Random chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischer Random chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10×8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. Im really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so its not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today." Radio Interview, June 27, 1999 (see 2:18–3:03) (also see here 39:04–39:49) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2344&v=eMTbSfBvC7c"

"But the point about Fischer Random is that it’s basically the same as the old chess, except that you get rid of the theory, and it’s very easy to remember the rules. That’s my point, you see? I was just looking at a book Sam just gave me. This book about Capablanca. Capablanca had a very interesting game that he proposed. It was 10X10 or something and it had two Kings and extra pieces and you can win the game by mating either of your opponent’s KingsFischer is conflating Capablanca’s 10X10 game and V. R. Parton’s Double King Chess here.. And it looked like a very creative game, and maybe much better than Fischer Random, but it looks very intimidatingThis is backwards, small variants are vastly rarer than large among the Chess Variant Pages. People probably don’t design them because the space pressure is intimidating.. Even for me, right? Top chess player. Very intimidating. All these extra pieces, huge board, two Kings. And if it intimidates me, it will intimidate the average person much more. So there are a lot of games that you can come up with that have practical defects. Not creative defects. But just defects in terms of discouraging people to learn themFischer is projecting his discouragement to learn these games onto at least some people here.. You see? That’s my point about Fischer Random. You can learn Fischer Random in 10 seconds, practically. So there is no impediment: you have the same pieces, the same board, all you have to do is get a little electronic shuffler, and in one second you have a position. But of course you could create more creative games than Fischer Random. Maybe, you know, an extra piece, a bigger board, and all kind of things. But my idea... people think I’m anti-chess. No, I’m not anti-chess. Im pro-chess. I’m trying to keep it alive. It’s just the reverse! I’m not coming up with anything radical at all.(2005)"

"With the advancement in computers, I predicted that maybe 50 years from now, there wont be any more high-level professional chess. You know. Like chess will be so well-analyzed. (Nakamura: So you think within 50 years, well have to, like, move to 960 or something?) Yeah I think so. Yeah I feel within 50 or 70 years professional chess playing wont be as big as it is now."— Wesley So, in a stream with Hikaru Nakamura, December 2021"

"I like Fischer chess and it is pity that we don’t have many tournaments on it." — Sergey Karjakin, on the upcoming 2022 WFRCC, September 2022"

"This is like a dream come true for any chess player. I mean I understand that this is a chess players chess. I understand maybe for public its difficult to follow Fischer Random. But the amount of joy we get playing this, I dont know if anything can be compared." — Levon Aronian in an interview with Ioan-Cristian Chirilă, September 2022"

"Teach people to play new chess, right away. Why do you offer them a black and white television set, when there is a set in color?" in the only meeting with FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, responding to the latter advocating "step by step" changes mindful of the heritage of chessGligorić (2002), p. 71."