Kasparov's Modern Chess

Vacation reading this year is the series 'Kasparov on Modern Chess'. While volumes two through four are more appropriate for a post on my World Championship Blog, the first volume, Revolution in the 70s, is surprisingly appropriate for this chess960 blog. If you're not familiar with the book, see Jeremy Silman's review, Kasparov on Modern Chess Volume One, for an outline of the material.

The last chapter in the book, 'The Opinions of 28 World Experts', is a 60-page look at the major issues -- 'problems', if you prefer more direct language -- facing modern opening theory. For someone like me, already hooked on chess960, the chapter is a long essay on Fischer's famous statement that 'The *Old* Chess Is Dead'. A few of the 28 experts even mentioned Fischer's invention.

• Nikitin: So that players should think with their own brains, the rules can also be changed slightly. Apart from the invention of his wonderful clock with the automatic addition of time, Fischer also suggested a new, arbitrary arrangrment of the pieces before the start of the game. But this is perhaps too radical. I think that it would be interesting to abolish castling or at least make it different: simply exchange the places of the King and the Rook, or move the King to the Rook's square and the Rook to the adjacent one (b1 or g1).
  
  Or, say in the initial position both Kings and Queens should exchange places with the Bishops. Old theory will immediately be shelved, and the creation of a new theory will be done by future generations. It is also important that in this case it will be possible to learn from the games of the classics: the basic laws of play in the middlegame and the endgame, and the method of combat with different Pawn structures will remain the same. (p.356)
  
  
• Sosonko: The excessive development of theory significantly reduces the purely playing component of chess -- that for which we so love this ancient game. How to avoid theory? Regarding this there have been many suggestions. My only comment is that Fischer or Bronstein chess is some different kind of game, and here I must 'pass', as I simply know nothing about it. (p.367)
  
  
• Sveshnikov: To return to something like the chess that we once played, the possibility of preparation must be minimised. But in what way? I do not like Fischer chess, for the reason that in it the evaluation of the initial position depends on a random draw. [...] Far more sensible is Bronstein chess, when everything is in the hands of the players themselves: with their initial moves they themselves lay out the pieces. But even so, this is already another game. (p.391)

Re Nikitin's suggestion that 'both Kings and Queens should exchange places with the Bishops', this is none other than SP521 RNQBBKNR. I would like to research what, if anything, is already known about this position.

Re Sosonko's 'here I must "pass", as I simply know nothing about it', I wish that all players of whatever strength were so objective before passing judgement on an evolution of the traditional game. The odds are that anyone in favor of chess960 has actually played it, while anyone against chess960 is speaking without experience.

Re Sveshnikov's 'more sensible is Bronstein chess', I believe that he is referring to the variant of shuffle chess where the two players take turns placing the pieces on the back rank. I've never investigated this idea and it would make a good start point for a followup post.