Could something radically new happen?

In theory, could someday radically new improvements and discoveries in some opening's theories happen? Or is chess little like monkey's business: you just have to remember hundreds of openings and repeat them as a monkey robot? I think chess is little dull then. It has not room for creativity anymore.

I think you have an inaccurate view about what openings are about.  Yeah... some of it is rote, but at the high level, there is a great deal of creativity possible in openings if you understand what you are doing.

Yes I have inaccurate view. I don't know any of them :) I just move the pieces. It is good to hear that there is still room for creativity. I thought that opening's theories are so perfect analyzied today, that for example 5 first move are done mechanically...Well, the possibilities of those 5 moves are perhaps astronomical so yes: there is still room for new experiences. 

I love the way super grandmasters have so grandly super mastered the game they create novelties.

That may be close to the type of radically new you're thinking except maybe more of a whole new "school" of thought?

I'm interested in what you have in mind with the thought and believe you must first believe it's possible to make room for it to exist so that it has the frame of your belief on which to build.

A good example (although top secret) may be the system designed for humans to reach over 3000 ELO without the aid of any computer at any time. Contact username GameBrain and ask him if you could join the MetaChess beta. I cannot divulge information due to being contractually bound, but I can say it's the real deal.

1. " Openings are were the master's creativity gets to be used. "

2. " You may not know it, but usually masters play 15-20 moves of theory before starting to play chess."

I think 1. & 2. are in little conflict. If they play theory there is no creativity. But ok, good to know that after 10-15 there still is.

I tried replacing the word 'chess' with the following:

Science 

Art 

Cooking 

Karate 

Flying aeroplanes 

It was good fun. 

So many misunderstandings.

1. There are of course novelties being found much earlier than move 10-15. Occasionally novelties are found in the first 5 moves. Of course that doesn't usually happen in a Najdorf Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. That you have to go beyond move 10-15 to find a novelty is just a myth, that probably came into being when people heard that some critical Grünfeld Exchange lines are analysed up to endgame move whatever.

2. Creativity can be applied to any phase of the game, to most moves. Not just the opening.

3. Chess being about "remembering hundreds of openings and repeating them" is such a typical cliched misconception that only people without the slightest idea what chess is about have. I like to compare the memory aspect in chess with the endurance of a football player. You cannot play world class chess without having a reasonably good memory, just like you cannot be a top football player if you lose your breath after 10 minutes of running. On the other hand, being a world class athlete is completely useless if you lack the ability of handling the ball properly.

Petrick, according to your recent threads you seem to be very concerned about ultimate questions on chess, when you have barely started to simply discover the game (like most of us). Why the hurry? This is not tic tac toe, you know.

Yes... you have to play like a robot at high levels.

There, now you can never say you've never been told the truth.

I wanna first have some view about the thing I'm planning to teach and learn my self and beside that I'm little philosophical person. 

Ok, that's maybe because robots and algorithm play better chess than humans :) , but what I meaned of my question was that do chess players just have to learn and remember hundrends of openings and end games so that the main factory is their memory, but it shows it is not the case. Good!

Yes, at a high level that is exactly what they need. There is room for variations within basic structures, but yes.

At your current level: Memorising < learning chess fundamentals. I don't know if I should recommend reading 'my system' - it would appear that you're already suffering amply as it is. 

@Nicholas:

They need to just remember things? You mean? I'm disapointed. Chess is not then art in my point of view. Remembering things is mechanic, it is not creative like art.

@VulpesVelox: "My system" is a book and you recomnd to read it? Not now, I have already ordered one book. There is enough to read.

It's said to be the 'bible of chess'. Dvoretsky is said to require having read this book before he'd consider training a player. 

Don't worry too much about theory. At your level, both you and your opponent will commonly be out of book by move 5. Heck, I'm a master and I'm frequently out of book after 7-8 moves. Sure, there are lines where theory goes 30 moves or more, but you don't have to play those lines, and most of the time people don't. Heck, last year Magnus Carlsen had a game against a fellow super-GM where he was out of book by move 2!

For anyone wondering: that game started 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b5. I consider b5 to be very sensible and sound, not dubious at all.

Did Magnus won that his "out of book" game?

People like you need to stop using the phrase "at your level" ... period... trust me, it's good advice.

Just play how you want to play and get whatever you want to get out of it... seems there's nothing better than that