Teimur RADJABOV: - In the nearest future Fisher chess will not be able to replace classical chess because the latter is not yet worked out. The classic is still alive and is not going to give way to the newcomer. The tournaments held nowadays prove this. It will be possible to switch to the new chess only after the so called drawn death, or possible white death of classical chess. This hardly possible in the nearest future if possible at all. There is no overall chess stagnation; there are many non-drawn outcomes in tournaments and single games. That’s why I don’t see any sense in switching in the nearest future to Fisher chess that is being put to the test. In a sense grandmasters just fiddle away with Fisher chess. The game cannot reach a decent level in the nearest future.
Dmitry JAKOVENKO: - I have a foreboding that in case of switching to Fisher chess players will remember 960 times as much information as now. Jokes aside, I admit that Fisher chess can replace the classic, but it takes time, of course.
Ernesto INARKIEV: - I am not inclined to oppose the classical chess to Fisher chess. I think that both variants of the game can peacefully co-exist without forcing out each other. Whether Fisher chess will succeed in approaching classical chess in terms of popularity is another question.
Evgeny ALEXEEV: - It seems to me that in a decade the game, invented by Fisher, can achieve some popularity, but it will hardly be able to compete with the classical game in the foreseeable future. Now Fisher-random is in practice only in the separate parts of the world, the rest more or less large international competitions in this version of chess are annually held in the German city of Mainz. To tell the truth, I have never participated in Fisher chess tournaments. I tried to play only some easy games and I think this game is interesting enough.
Vladimir AKOPYAN: - I played only one Fisher chess tournament last year and found the experience very interesting. The game is difficult to play for the first time, of course. Everything is quite the other way around: random pieces layout in the starting position that drastically changes the opening, different way of castling. In that tournament I habitually opened the game with 1.e4, but this starting move turned out to be awful in some positions, because the starting line-up changes from round to round and you should think well over the opening, otherwise you quickly get a losing position. Sometimes, according to the starting position, 1.g4 can be the right move, though in the classical chess it looks eccentric. Fisher chess is quite playable and suitable for tournaments. In a decade it can become popular. Still I don’t think Fisher chess can replace the classic, that hasn’t exhausted itself.
Vugar GASHIMOV: - I don’t think that Fisher chess can be the alternative to the classical game in the nearest future. However I do not exclude the possibility that one day the moves in common chess will end, and then people will switch to Fisher-random. People will always have the passion towards chess, no matter the modification it might appear before the future generations, because the game has no end. It is possible to change the line-up of the pieces, some rules, but chess will not cease being chess because of this. The essence of the game remains the same and people will play chess for many centuries more.
.
Ivan CHEPARINOV: - I think that the time of Fisher chess will come, sooner or later. And now they are not relevant because the mankind has not enjoyed classical chess enough. I have never played in Fisher chess tournaments as I believe their time has not come yet, and the grand masters have more important things in old classics. Probably, in about 10 years’ time Fisher chess will be taken seriously, not as an entertainment.
Wang YUE: - Fisher chess makes me curios of it. I think that in 15 years’s time it will be widespread. And in 100 years, when the classical chess opening theory is worked out, there will be the time of Fisher-random, which will move aside the classical game..
Rustam KASYMZHANOV: - I agree with Wang Yue that in a century Fisher chess will widespread. Hardly anybody of the journalists who present at this press conference and chess players of my generation will live till that time. Let the following generations deal with this alternative game problem. I used to play Fisher chess, and it seems to me that while there remain much novelties in classical chess, there will be no need to switch to Fisher-random, or, what it is called else, Chess 960. And the conversations about the «drawn death» of the common chess have been on 100 years ago and 200 years ago, and, I think, it will be on for a long time. As long as top-level chess players are still winning and losing classical chess tournaments, the game will exist.
Pavel ELJANOV: - It is very interesting to play Fisher chess. I participated in a tournament in Mainz. I thought it would be difficult to for me to find ways in the new game. Actually there was nothing special. It is almost the same game as the common one, you have to think a bit more from the first moves (the theory is not indispensable), which is good in general. Fisher chess should be understood as an alternative to the classical one in terms of absence of theory opposed to comprehensive theory. The theory of the classical game has been elaborated so extensively, that chess players rivalry is becoming the best memory and the most profound openings knowledge rivalry.
.
Shakhriyar MAMEDYAROV: - Fisher chess is a very interesting game, full of possibilities and variations. Even world’s top grandmasters do not know how to play the opening of the game, because the computer picks the starting position out of 960 variants. On the given stage of the development Fisher-random chess represent some experiment, and I think, it is too early to speak about any serious alternative to classical game. Perhaps, in 30 years when we become old, this new variant of game will become popular and we will be able to tell some details about it.
