wouldn't fisher random be better

In medieval Europe a gradual revolution took place ( which ultimately for a certain period made Europe the greatest and most innovative power on Earth ) which brought with it the acceleration of life in general. It is natural that this new era called for the speeding up of chess which was deemed to be too slow.

The major changes:

The bishop can move further than the original elephant

The queen is vastly more powerful than the original advisor

Pawns can now move two squares when they start their journey, and consequently en passant became necessary.

Castling has replaced the king's leap.

White always moves first; the queens start on their own color; there must be a white square on the right of each player.

"Minor" changes, perhaps:

Stalemate is universally a draw, while previously it could have been a win, a half win, and IIRC ocasionally a loss for the superior player.

Check counts whether announced or not.

Others ...

Acceleration of life?  Hmm, maybe you're thinking of industrialization and urbanization?  I'm pretty sure that wasn't going on in medieval Europe.  Medieval Europe was more caught up in trying to farm enough so that people didn't starve all while trying not to die of plague.

The renaissance was about, hey, weren't not starving!  Science, art, philosophy, and literature seem like interesting things to do when you're not dieing!  Still no acceleration of life though.

...

Ok I admit I'm not exactly a historian

The seeds of the process date back to the late middle ages. In Britain feudalism was started to be dismantled even as early as the 12th-13th century.

I see what you're saying better now watcha.  A few differences that make a change harder (regardless of whether the change is necessary or not) are:

chess is a higher quality game now than it was while it's rules were being changed, it's more established both culturally and professionally, and variants and chess-like games from other countries are available.

I think Fischerrandom is better. Less memorization and actually making your own moves.

Guess what? Openings still haven't killed chess. There aren't hundreds of equal players sitting atop the FIDE ratings who can draw every time due to openings.

Think openings make chess "too easy?" Use them to beat the world's best. Then we'll listen.

Bobby was a genious, but he was wrong on this. Chess 960 is nothing more than a variant. It is not and will never be "real chess."

It doesn't just cut out openings, it also eliminates a lot of pattern recognition in middlegames.  Less pattern recognition has a down side too.  In standard chess you're rewarded for having experience in certain basic middlegame configurations.  Not that you've memorized the best moves, but you're aware of certain ideas and can draw on past successes and failures.

I know proponents say that's a big plus because it levels the playing field, but to me it makes the game a lot less interesting.

Urbanization was an element in Medieval Europe, but a minor chord. It accelerated rapidly with industrialization beginning in the late-eighteenth century. Mechanization of farms finished the job.

Urban areas first developed with the Neolitic Revolution six to ten thousand years ago in Mesopotamia, east Asia, and Central America. The beginning of cultivation of wheat, rice, and corn gave rise to sun worship (and ultimately monotheism in some places*), authoritarian power, and cities. It also had long-term deleterious effects upon human health. Cities were the least healthy places to live and work until the rise of modern public health and sanitation (late nineteenth century).

Spencer Wells, Pandora's Seed does a good job of tracing the long-term effects of the Neolithic Revolution. 

An historian known to me offers additional references on these matters at http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2008/02/origins-of-malaria.html and http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2011/03/neolithic-revolution-and-american.html.

*Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy is interesting reading on this point.

I think that is where natural talent comes into play. Fischerrandom was meant to be more spontaneuous.

The traditional set-up is the best. It's got a perfect symmetry to it BUT because a lot of theory is known (for example some games go 30 moves into book) and sometimes fans are disappointed with the lack of supposed creativity so Chess 960 (or Fischerandom) is a nice alternative. 

That's what I think. I remember I suggest this during the World Cup and Nigel thought it wasn't a good idea. Who knows though? Normal chess is still very interesting even at the highest levels (3300 computers).

This is the most important rule BTW, thanks to it chess became the game it is now.

Here's some of the perceived drawbacks of chess:

• Dense opening theory

• White has a huge advantage

• Draws occur about as often as victories

• The knight is the only leaper and they make up only 4 of 32 pieces

• The queen is disportionately powerful to the rest of the pieces meaning once the defending side can trade queens there are no exciting attacks anymore (or they can never begin in the first place)

• Engines are much, much better than even the best players in the world

• Even with a clear advantage your opponent can still draw (two knights, stalemate, queen vs rook, etc.)

Which do you agree with?

All. The solution:

1. Dense opening theory is one of the merits of the game.

2. White's advantage is slight.

3. The proportion of draws strongly correlates with skill. Weak players rarely draw after they become strong enough to deliver checkamate with two queens. (For those 1600 blitz players who need more than four moves to effect a checkmate with two queens, their incompetence does raise their draw ratio.)

4. The knight is the only piece that can jump unless you are playing Seirawan Chess. Then, the knight, hawk, and elephant have this capacity. Seirawan chess is a terrific variant--vastly better than most. I would not go so far as to call it an improvement of the normal game, however.

5. Queenless attacks offer strong players the opportunity to prove their mettle.

6. Engines facilitate the search for truth in chess, which remains elusive in the overwhelming majority of the 10^43 estimated possible positions.

7. Drawing resources in otherwise hopeless positions offer an appealing aspect that does not exist in most games. It is one of the sources of the endless appeal of a game that remains fresh through a lifetime of study and skill improvement.

 Which do you agree with?

Zero.

Just noticed the black queen is trapped in that position.
..Qxl2 Bf7! ..Bxo4 Bxl2 ..Bxp5 Nxp5
Rook for the queen.  Are there way too many pieces for black to be lost?