Chess960 is severely misunderstood.

A friend likes to play it for fun here at Chess.com, and I indulge him.  It's a change of pace, but I don't really take it seriously for precisely the reasons you give.

However, I still use it to learn while having a bit -- I emphasis bit -- of fun.  Different arrangements mean different weak squares in the initial setup, so it has been good practice coordinating pieces toward those weakness and sometimes the unique tactical play that results.  Still, I am left with no real sense of accomplishment or aesthetic appreciation.  In this sense it reminds me of abstract expressionist painting, like Rothko's bands of color.  So what.  Give me a true American expressionist like Edward Hopper and the implications in his work anytime.  The same applies to standard chess.

I've got a better idea than chess960, how about adding Capablanca's chancellor and archbishop to the standard setup (see this Wikipedia section).  Perhaps the analogy could be made between chess and English draughts and between Capa chess and International Draughts.  The latter in each case is more tactically dynamic.  Of course, if it hasn't caught on by now it probably never will.

Frankly, at my level and with all the chess books I own and love -- in other words, its long tradition of the standard setup with only the movement of the queen (vizier), the bishop and pawn being expanded -- standard chess is just fine by me.

Problem is, 'chess' isn't a mathematical term. A chess variant is, according wiki, is a game "related to, derived from, or inspired by chess." so to say that 960 is not a variant is ridiculous. also, mainly, the problem it addresses really only exists at the top level. it's been predicted time and again that chess will suffer a draw death, and I bet it will happen, but it will definitely still be popular among the masses. even if there are no more GMs.

and whether its replaced by 960 or not, it will still die.

Here's some food for thought, probably too much salt in for most people's taste.

There is an event where contestants are judged for telling the most interesting story.   The stories are judged according to how interesting, engrossing, gratifying they are to a panel of listeners.   In one version of the contest there are no rules whatsover.   This means a contestant can recite a story someone else has written with no negative consequence to him as a contestant.   If he/she has memorized the works of James Joyce or Kormac McCarthy and the panelists are unfamiliar with it, or even if they are, so be it.   

In the other version of the contest the story has be entirely original.

At the highest levels of competition one of the contests becomes pretty much farcical albeit anyone who can memorize the works of another author deserves a bit of praise.

The other contest better captures the spirit of what the contest is meant to accomplish.   

Bobby Fischer was a fabulous story teller but he hated the fact he always had to go up against some jackass who memorized the complete works of Shakespeare.

There is a difference between a mere storyteller and a weaver of tales, profound tales of the human condition.  If the proverbial "jackass" you mention didn't just memorize Shakespeare but understood him, then I'd prefer the recited play to a new, unique but shallow tale by, say, Stephen King.  Naturally, the "jackass" can only claim he understands Shakespeare, perhaps profoundly; he did not write the play.

Fischer at his best was a weaver of profound tales, and there are Grandmasters who only tell the tale of the Informant, so to speak, and little else.  However, to believe that Fischer sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus is naive.  He was a talented young man, but also an obsessed one.  Those who knew him say he could always be found with a Russian chess magazine folded in his back pocket.  While his competitors knew some opening theory, no one studied the latest Russian theory the way Fischer did.  You don't go 11-0 in the U.S. Championship on talent alone.

Those who have studied the game know chess contains an entire body of theory -- actually practice -- of what has gone before; the Russians call it chess culture.  It is important to know that culture so you can improve upon it, make it even more profound.  Chess is not ahistorical any more than storytelling is.

As far as James Joyce, the style found in Finnegans Wake was new, but he drew upon Irish folklore, history and more for the content.  Perhaps not even the structure was new.  Wikipedia notes "Many noted Joycean scholars such as Samuel Beckett and Donald Phillip Verene link the cyclical structure to Giambattista Vico's seminal text La Scienza Nuova ("The New Science") ..."

Chess, like literature, is rich because it has many precedents and a long history.

Fischer was deeply prepared in all his openings.

Anyway, I like this analogy, it helps me see the other POV. Here's how I would tell it.

Imagine a similar contest for story telling. Instead of speaking though, the contestants have a year to write something enriching, engrossing, gratifying, etc. This preperation and thought not only lets the artist fully explore their art form, but the finished product is much more interesting. The writer likely got inspiration from many different sources, not only other's literature, but also friends and other writers who gave advice.

The finished product is more exciting because it's how the author used these tools.

Compare to a similar contest where there is no preparation. Maybe they must write a type of piece or on a certain subject matter they know nothing about. They may even have to write in a language they're not fluent in. This may be a fun exercise, but it's not nearly as wonderful for the artist or the fan.

Yeah, I've played a few 960 games. It is fun.

In my games both sides had to guess what would be effective of course, which is interesting. Each side gets some things right and some things wrong. But this also means it leads to a somewhat anemic middlegame where neither side can apply much pressure because both are somewhat off balance.

You're a bright one, Binary -- my nickname for you -- your analogy is excellent.

Fightingbobs analogy of a "story" is quaint but flawed (although it is a very good attempt).

The objective of the game is to win. The story of the game is a side effect of the objective.  The rules of chess960 are identical to chess. The objective is the same - to win. The side effect of the objective is identical - a story.

Even if the elites had 100% memory recall of every game of chess or chess960 ever played - nothing changes. The objective and side effect remain the same. The story that would emerge from 100% recall of all games ever played would vary due to random fluctuations in decisions made (quantum fluctuations).

The opening premise of this topic still holds. Chess960 is severely misunderstood.

Quaint, but flawed?  Quantum fluctuations at the macro level? 

The very greatest chess players are artists, and their art tells a mesmerizing tale and not just a story.  Dr. Max Euwe said, "Alekhine is a poet who creates a work of art out of something that would hardly inspire another man to send home a picture post-card."  Only lesser players see it as a technical exercise, though sometimes it is reduced down to that in today's chess engine obsessed world.

To your point about winning, it isn't just to win but how you win.  If it weren't so you wouldn't have anthologies of the greatest games.

Regarding Chess960, when it has the staying power that chess has had over the last 1600 years then you'll have something, and that will not be determined by any one man but by the culture itself.

You contradicted yourself. You first tried to distinguish between a work of art and a story, and then conflated them again. "How you win" is a story by definition. Art cannot be perceived without a story. A story is any path that has meaning to the observer.

Yes, "quantum fluctuation" was a really bad and corny phrase, sorry about that. What I meant is that there is always something that causes variation at some level.

Here is my premise:

The artist is a story teller. A story teller is an artist.

From this premise I can derive this:

Statement 1:

Chess960 has many more stories to tell and therefore many more artistic statements can be made than in chess.

Statement 2:

Chess960 has many more artistic statements and therefore many more stories to tell than chess.

Statement 1 and 2 are equivalent. Chess960 has a greater overall gamut of possible stories and works of art than chess.

Your final point that culture will determine the future of Chess960 is stating the obvious and cannot be disproven and therefore is one of the fallacies of ommission:

 https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

You obviously don't understand what I mean by Culture, and that's with a capital "C," which I should have used in my previous post.

Culture is a superorganic entity, beyond any organism to control or shape, it is omnipotent but not omniscient, in other words knowing what it must do at the time but not where it will end up.  This is the view of cultural anthropologists who hold a deterministic view of Culture as the major factor in shaping man's actions; it was the view held by the late Alfred Kroeber and my professor, John Greenway, who just happened to pen Down among the wild men;: The narrative journal of fifteen years pursuing the Old Stone Age aborigines of Australia's western desert, a book that may interest you.

My point is, your view that Chess960 will interest another Capablanca, a Fischer, a Kasparov and thus, to keep the literary metaphor going, produce the works of Shakespeare, or my view that it's a cheap crime novel, the cheeesic equivalent of Mickey Spillane, is of no importance.  Just as with evolution, some species die out and others adapt and live on, and the survival of this new form of chess you claim to be superior to the old may be a new adaption or become a virtually useless appendage, another chess variant that never caught on; it may even die out, though I doubt that.  Ultimately, Culture with a capital "C" will determine the fate of this new idea just as evolution determines the fate of species in the natural world.

Chess 960 is great !