Could something radically new happen?

Just out of curiosity; what's wrong with saying "at your level"?

You might find out one day and I guarantee it would be quite unpleasant

So in other words, you don't know either? 

Yes he did. But MVL tried the same opening against him in a blitz game and won.

Here's Carlsen's win
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1790342

Here's MVL's win
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1794875
 

 

In those games, after 1, Nf3, would 1... d5 be an option?

I think opening theory and all that becomes important from around 2000(or maybe 1800 onwards). Most matches below that rating are won or lost based on tactics. Matches below 1200 are won or lost due to dropping pieces and lack of knowing basic checmating patterns. Though, it seems that even at much lower rating levels(upto very high rating levels) some players always play one particular opening or one particular defense and become pretty good at it while being complete noobs in most of the other openings or defenses.

So, I agree that all this opening theory makes Chess seem pretty choreographed rather than original. I think Fischer also thought the same and invented Chess 960 to nullify the opening theory. But, I somehow don't like Chess 960. So, I have an idea(just like Fischer) to nullify the opening theory in chess.

My Idea is: 1st 3 moves should be dice based. Like throw a dice(whose faces will have 1,2,3,4). And depending on the dice, player has to make a move.

If the dice shows 1 = player has to make a move on/from either A file or H file.

If the dice shows 2 = player has to make a move on/from either B file or G file.

If the dice shows 3 = player has to make a move on/from either C file or F file.

If the dice shows 4 = player has to make a move on/from either D file or E file.

I think this method would nullify the opening theory and remove the huge advantage that white has on the black due to the first move chance.

My idea is to give enough freedom to players while nullifying the opening theory. In this method, I think a player can choose from 4 options(or more) within some constraints for first 3 moves. By imposing this method on just first 3 moves ensures that opening theory is mostly nullified. It would be difficult for a human being to know all these various openings and their various lines if such randomness is introduced. Computers might still be able to know the various opening theory, but games between human beings would definitely be taken out of the opening theory arena.

 Well, I could see by the explorer that 1... d5 is the second most used option.

 

The combination of science and art in chess is what makes it so appealing. I'm sure the good players have memorised tons of theory, but surely they understand the ideas behind what they learn. So it's not purely rote, it's learning the consequences of the patterns of moves etc.

I play at a low level so can't speak for the better players but for what it's worth, the thing I enjoy most about chess is the individuality of each game, the sequences of moves that occur and stuff like that. Even something like being massively up in material but then losing on time, when both players have a few seconds left on the clock. It all adds to the fun of the game.

I think there is plenty of room for creativity in the game. Although maybe higher rated players would disagree.