Chess 960. Good or bad for chess as a game.

Many players love playing chess 960 -a variant which changes the situation of all pieces except of pawns-.
Others almost hate playing that kind of chess.
Others for the same reason they dont play it at all.

I dont know if it is good or bad. I think it has its pros and cons but i need other opinions too.

What do you think? You like playing 960 and you do or you prefer the clasic, good chess?

I like both.  Fischer created it so that players wouldn't be able to rely on opening knowledge.  I play regular chess far more often, but I do enjoy 960.

I like good ol' chess because:

1. It's fun to learn openings and gambits and such.

2. It's easier to set up and play

3. It's connected to a long and recognized tradition and makes me feel like part of something ancient.

I appreciate how 960 addresses the concerns of master-class players with memorizing rote openings and such, but that's just not a concern at my level of play.

i respect it and im in that situation too.
but i think all this changes caused for make chess more popular and that brings more money in federatios and others (clubs, sites etc).

i dont know maybe i dont like 960 because my rating there is low.
anyway i play it only in team matches where my team needs players. 

i like the way you see it and i agree.
as for the memorized moves it happens and i like that -although i cant memorize many-. i think that when players study about chess (openings or moves) they have a better and more enjoyable game. 

i have never played chess 960 as vote chess and i have to try it before telling you by sure.
i like vote chess because the team talks before make a move and i think that the best move is the one which voted nd will be played 

As long as people see chess960 as a chess variant and not something that should replace chess, I see no reason why there could be anything wrong with it. I like both.

I like 960 for its unpredictability. Normal chess is standard.

im not studying chess books very much.
i have only studied the openings a little.

anyway i think i dont have a big problm with 960 but i prefer avoid playing it for the reasons i said before. 

Chess is already dead. Fischer created 960 to save chess.

I think it's a good way to try to avoid openings, opening preparation etc. It is more beneficial to play 960 - Fishcer random - as a form on OTB chess and not bullet or blitz chess 960 !

The world championship , and any other calibre of chess tournament should be play under CHESS960 rules ; And we will start to see REAL CHESS MASTERS , arize and shine ; No more prearrange dozen or so.. MEMORIZED DRAWS .

They are MASTERLY HIDEN !

i dont know. i think that chess is popular  enough now and it doesnt need to be saved from anyone. anyway i agree that 960 was made to make chess more popular.

im sure that there arent manyplayers who play only 960

Moreover i think that the most fascinating mates have been done in Standard and not 960 chess.

i have made a forum : Awesome Mates:The Perfect Overthrow.
it is based on mates as it says and it has 650+ comments and many mate occasions. if you loook you will see that it isnt any mate in 960 

He has a point, though. If you look at the top players as they play (most of the times), they just move and move without ever thinking about it, since they already know the first 30 moves because of their home preparation with engines and stuff. Look at the Carlsen vs Anand match, where they drew because of the 3 fold repetition rule, it was just obvious that they both knew the outcome around move 10 and already agreed to a draw by playing it.

I'm going with 960, as it is truly unpredictable and actually makes you think a lot more than standard chess, you just can't see the patterns if they're not there. Fischer was right, a true genius would be just as good in it as in normal chess. It's a shame top players don't play it (as far as I know), and though it sounds ridiculous from a noob like me, I fall asleep when I see top players drawing games before they even get exciting for the single purpose that they need a draw.
(Seriously, in one of Ben Finegold's lectures, he says how weird it is that tournaments nowadays aren't about who wins, but rather who draws more higher rated opponents than others.)
Real chess was played in the 19th century, and died when players started spending hours memorising patterns instead of playing risky and trying out their own ideas. Now top players are playing a move because an engine says so.
Just my two cents.

Rubbish.

Chess is dead.

lol.

all you said are very interesting and i could completely agree with them although im not with 960. i think i play something like "the REAL chess" you said. i almost never study about openings and many times during a game my moves are based in my ideas.
Anyway the only moves i can memorize are the first 5 of a game. 

for me chess is dead only in the place i live

I like Chess 960 and miss it on Chess.Com. I like the fact that it evens the playing field to a degree. I play competitive OTB chess in tournaments and don't like all the prep that is involved with having to study my opponents games and spending money on a big library of books. Also I think that new comers are daunted by all the theory that they lose interest early on and never return. There use to be some high profile tournaments with the likes of Aronian the best player.