Was Bobby Fischer right?

In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more.

Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, October 16 2006

[Capablanca] wanted to change the rules already, back in the twenties, because he said chess was getting played out. He was right. Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative.

Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, October 16 2006

I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, it really is dead. Alot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm 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 it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.

Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999

Originally posted by Tsekos the punk
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is en ...[text shortened]... tion and prearrangement like it is today.

Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999

I think so, yes. Fisher was right.
I'd like an extension of ordinary chess, I want FisherRandom.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think so, yes. Fisher was right.
I'd like an extension of ordinary chess, I want FisherRandom.

Is there any website like this one where someone can play online Fischerandom chess?

Do you know?

Yes he is right. Some of the greats played some openings that are now considered inferior. Philidor played philidors defense obviously and I think nimzovich played Nc6 against e5 or was it alekhine? Anyways the opening theory was not up to the level that it is today. However saying that they would not do so good against a player who knows well opening theory is quite farfetched. Their tactics were outstanding and a lot of things were discovered during their reign just as there was during fisher' and kasparovs time.

Originally posted by Tsekos the punk
Is there any website like this one where someone can play online Fischerandom chess?

Do you know?

Well, no, but with a bit of patience there might be way to play complete FisherRandom here at RHP...

Even now you can play unrated FisherRandom here but with a "Set Position" feature, but without the castling rule.

Oh come on. Some kid that's looked at modern openings could outplay Morphy or Capablanca?

Fischer was in bad health and obviously suffering from dementia when he said that.

The statement is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Oh come on. Some kid that's looked at modern openings could outplay Morphy or Capablanca?

Fischer was in bad health and obviously suffering from dementia when he said that.

The statement is ridiculous.

Not only that, but his track record for his opinions isn't exactly good either. I mean at this point anything that comes out of Fischer's mouth should be taken with a huge grain of salt imo. Its a shame he ruined his chess legacy

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Oh come on. Some kid that's looked at modern openings could outplay Morphy or Capablanca?

Fischer was in bad health and obviously suffering from dementia when he said that.

The statement is ridiculous.

If Magnus Carlsen is considered being a kid, then he certainly is right. But of course, not every kid.

>Great players in a bygone era would be great players today because they'd have access to all the things that make good players now. I wonder about Morphy however. He never studied and was incredibly lazy, relying only on his great natural talent and instincts. That wouldn't cut it today.
>Capablanca may have been the most naturally talented chess player of them all, and his second wife said after he died that he didn't even own a chess set, but somehow I think he'd be just as good today.

The point is this..

Fischer suggested his new variant of chess, the so-called "fischerandom chess".

The advantage of fischerandom chess when compared with orthodox chess has been mentioned and explained by Fischer himself.

Now what disadvantages does Fischerandom have when compared with orthodox chess?

Does it have any?

And if it does not have any, wouldn't it be wise to replace orthodox chess with fischerandom once and for all?

The interesting point is that the classical chess is one of the 960 variants of FisherRandom. With a slight redefinition of 'castling' the we play FisherRandom already, one of the variants anyway.

I think FisherRandom will gain postition over time, but not over night. The 25 of November I will have a tournament in RandomChess at my Club. After that I'll know if I can introduce FR further. Then I would like to have a parallel rating system for this. Let's see where this will lead.

I don't think good players want to throw away their memorizations about standard openings. I think the FR will start from beneeth and progress upwards. We'll see if the interest in FR will grow.

Maybe what he is saying about chess being dead applies at the elite level of the game, but surely not under say 2200 or 2300.

I'm around a 1500 rated player and I barely understand the concepts of the one or two openings that I try to play now, I certainly don't have more than a couple of moves from select lines in those openings memorized let alone memorize 20+ moves deep in a Narjdorf Sicillian line.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that at my level I am looking forward to the many enjoyable years of studying this game that are ahead of me.
Weather it be new and complex openings or middle and end game tactics the study and playing of chess for many many years to come is exciting for me.

Originally posted by Tsekos the punk
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is en ...[text shortened]... tion and prearrangement like it is today.

Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999

There is some truth in what Fischer said. We must keep in mind however that this does not apply to most club players. Players who have jobs or run business's don't have time for a lot of book study anyway. While Fischers comments apply more directly to the stronger over the board players, I doubt the correspondence chess groups will be affected much by this, with 3 days or more to ponder a move, the correspondence player can research openings, and find his or her own improvements, also the slower time controls of correspondence chess allow for a more flexible playing schedule. Fischers comments are just one more reason I've stopped playing over the board chess, and will be happy to stay with RHP.
😏

Originally posted by Tsekos the punk
The point is this..

Fischer suggested his new variant of chess, the so-called "fischerandom chess".

The advantage of fischerandom chess when compared with orthodox chess has been mentioned and explained by Fischer himself.

Now what disadvantages does Fischerandom have when compared with orthodox chess?

Does it have any?

And if it does ...[text shortened]... t have any, wouldn't it be wise to replace orthodox chess with fischerandom once and for all?

I think it does have a disadvantage: the coordination of the pieces in the orthodox starting position. knights on c3, f3, d2, e2, bishops on c4, g2, b2, etc look much "prettier" to me.

But if I had given the chance to remove orthodox chess from the earth and replace it with fischer random chess, I would give it serious consideration.

god, I'd love to play fischerandom, I'm horrible at opening theory 🙁