Future of Chess

I wanted to write a few posts on the premise that professional chess will have to change at some point in the future. Professional players, including world champions, have griped that GM level opening theory has become burdensome. Fischer Random (aka chess960) was one of countless possible solutions to the opening theory problem, recommended by Fischer, and is arguably the most popular alt version of chess. Yet in over 25 years since its first recommendation, chess960 isn't posed to replace normy chess; it isn't near 1% of chess played today. Why hasn't the burden of GM opening theory caused a shift towards zero/low opening theory chess? In other sports, even conservative ones like tennis, rules are modified in light of issues that undermine the competitive nature of the game. In chess, no significant rule changes have been made in a long time.

Three possible reasons for this involve social inertia aka tradition.
(a) Players have grown fond of the normal starting position and rules.
(b) For 99% of players, chess opening theory isn't a serious problem.
(c) Fischer random 960 is too big a change.

If Fisher Random is too big a departure from normy chess, then what about much smaller changes?
Here we consider 3 minimalist changes.