Opening Theory - Good or Bad for Chess?

Today, the most important openings have been analyzed over 20 moves deep, sometimes well into the endgame, and it is not unusual for leading players to introduce theoretical novelties on move 25 or even later.

Many of the greatest games ever played are pre-engine.

It is obviously bad for chess in general. I think this is in fact one of the reasons chess has lost its spark. Nowadays chessplayers look back at the glorious past with a sense of nostalgia.

More than a hundred years ago chess was seen as a game of endless possibilities. That's why players dashed headlong into the oppnent's camp because they thought with enough precision and ingenuity anything was possible.

But opening theory is in fact an admission that the game has its limits.

It's about whether it's good or bad for chess. Opening theory IS part of chess, whether you like it or not.

Of course, for patzers like me, it's not that important. And it can be fascinating.

But it's an inherent part of what chess is. Just like theoretical endgames. Somehow people who claim that chess is only memorization bash opening theory and fail to mention endgame theory.

It is definitely very bad for chess, the excessive need for opening novelties will continue until it gets so bad that either no one can beat anyone, or having photographic memory is the only way to beat another person at the top level, either way the beauty and creativity of chess will gradually disappear, and this has clearly already begun to happen!
Its when this happens this everyone will realise Fischer was right and they will make championship games a lot quicker, then eventually switch to 960! But this could take hundreds of years to happen.. Until then we'll have to look at tons of championship matches that are extremely blande compared to anything we'd see 50 or more years ago. :(

Solution: Chess960
Chess960 is like 20x less popular than chess on this site. You can change that by playing it more. There is very little downside. And as it gets more popular it will get better.
In the future if it becomes more popular than chess it might become the default on lichess.
As for FIDE adopting Chess960 I don't think it is going to happen any time soon. FIDE is all about money and there is no interest in Chess960 (no sponsors, no more selling opening books, engines for preparation...).

#4 is wrong.

Since concrete theory is so developed these days there is no "excessive need for novelties". Instead there is a trend to just get playable positions without a body of concrete theory behind them and move the fight away from the opening into the middle- and endgame. Actually the current world champion is the forerunner of this trend.

I actually like studying opening theory, but I need to try chess960, sounds like fun.

"No more theory means more creativity." – Artur Yusupov

"If accepted on a professional level, this innovation (chess 960)would mean a return to the golden age of chess: the age of innocence and creativity will return, without us losing any of the essential attractions of the game we love." – Valery Salov

I tend to agree.

Obviously FIDE is a huge obstacle to any kind positive change in chess, but as chess fails to gain popularity in the mainstream, it will eventually reach a breaking point where something serious has to be done if chess is ever going to exposed to the masses. ( like decreasing time controls ) Companies like agon are already seeing the huge potential of chess, because it is played by so many people, but still being mystified at how few people follow it at professional level. This is because chess at professional level is vastly different from how average players actually play it - gregshahade.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/slow-chess-should-die-a-fast-death/ , in in the end it will be solved by profit motive, eventually people will realise that spectators have more interest in blitz than in classical ( which virtually no one is actually interested in ) , and tournaments like the million dollar chess and blitz matches will start to gain more attention than the world championship itself. Then all attention chess in chess will be focused on Rapid/Blitz , and classical will fall into obscurity where it will hopefully stay!!

You have to realise scoreman, chess players are only going to get stronger and stronger, its extremely unlikely the Magnus Carlsen today will be stronger than any top player in 500 years, and what about another 500 years after that? Vast majority of games at the top level are already decided by positional, a recent trend started by Carlsen in the span of a few years is really meaningless in the scheme of grand scheme of things.

Classical chess will only become less and less popular, and rightly so, the fact is, much like interest was lost in checkers because top players were perfecting the game, the same is beginning to happen to chess, the game will only become less and less dynamic and entertaining. Just looking at the change theory has brought to chess in a measly 100 years, and all the soul that has been drained from the game, how can anyone say that this won't just continue, and you think Carlsen winning some games without opening novelties will change this? Good joke.

It is fun, indeed. Chess960 serves well opening your mind, forcing you to deal with unknown structures and motifs. I would encourage everyone to dip into it, and i am sure it helps you become a better chessplayer. But these recurring prophecies that chess is dying are refuted again and again for almost a century now. The claim that chess960 should replace it may be worth a serious discussion in a few more decades, not yet.