I just watched an interview with the GOAT, Garry Kasparov, and he was being asked about politics primarily, but the conversation drifted toward chess like it inevitably had to. He wasn't complaining, but when he was asked about how the "common man" sees chess as a supreme exercise of the intellect he, in an almost annoyed way, said something along the lines of it requiring you to think, but not requiring any grandiose form of intelligence that only a genius possesses. Kasparov then kind of disagreed without being truculent, saying that some of the mystery has been removed from the game with cpus. Everyone has great chess programs and they watch the games online with their chess engine beside them, and they will instantly now when the GM makes a blunder. Garry said when he was growing up this technology wasn't there and the games of Fischer v Spassky were treated with supreme awe and holy study.
Somehow I find this a little saddening, that the game is kind of "solved". It will never be for me, as I don't even have full understanding of basic openings like the French, or English, but for hardcore enthusiasts it seems like the game lacks any potential of fresh play. I have to wonder if these claims are exagerrated, but for the Grandmasters I assume it must be somewhat true. But what I can't figure out is that if the game as been so well analyzed and understood, why isn't Chess960 more favored by the GMs? Thats why I can't feel so sure about these worries of the game dying out. And why if the game is so solved, do some players still have the ability to dominate the field. These considerations seem to belie the notion of chess becoming solved, but nevertheless I still would like to see more annotated, in depth analysis of GM 960 play.