Freestyle

Just think

Freestyle chess is not chess

Just stupid

And theory belongs to chess

If Magnus is bored classical chess Then stop.

And has Magnus so god he can beatt 3500
Stockfich

Maybe listen more to this sort of music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymNFyxvIdaM

@Hannut said in #1:

Just think

Freestyle chess is not chess

Just stupid

And theory belongs to chess

If Magnus is bored classical chess Then stop.

And has Magnus so god he can beatt 3500
Stockfich

Well, yes, no, and/or maybe.

Freestyle is not chess. That's true if we are talking about chess with no variants and the traditional chess we have known for generations.

Otherwise if the context is chess is a subset of freestyle, then yes.

If Magnus is bored with classical, then let him be. But also let him play Freestyle. I am not a fan of freestyle but doesn't affect me if he plays. In the same manner I don't care about other variants. Play it and as long as it doesn't affect me or other people, I have no issues. Affect here means in a sense that you are preventing me from playing the standard chess we have known. You do your thing. I do my own thing. As long we are not sleeping on each other, we are good.

Obviously theory is predominant in standard chess. That's the reason why I prefer it over Freestyle. If you don't like theory, don't play standard chess or you can still play it and pick an offbeat line.

@Hannut said in #1:

Just think

Freestyle chess is not chess

Just stupid

And theory belongs to chess

If Magnus is bored classical chess Then stop.

And has Magnus so god he can beatt 3500
Stockfich

Somewhat, yeah.

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/letter-to-the-editor-nic-concerning-chess960#1

Standard chess is a subset of chess 960. Position 518 in chess 960 is standard chess.

To be clear just because something is a superset or subset doesn't make it better or inferior. It depends on the context.

Probably the most prominent argument I see why some folks think 960 or Freeestyle is better than standard chess is because Magnus says so.

But when Fischer said so, they don't. Is it because Magnus is cooler than Fischer?

I don't think it's abou what is better. The OP clearly stated that: Freestyle chess is not chess

But we can derive from the fact that chess is a subset of freestyle chess, that chess is (a special case of) freestyle chess
For comparison: cows are animals, but not all animals are cow.
not all freestyle chess is chess. to that point I can agree with the OP.
But saying that freestyle chess is not chess, that's just like saying that no animal is a cow. I can't agree with that.

@axiomatik said in #6:

But when Fischer said so, they don't. Is it because Magnus is cooler than Fischer?
You should never focus on which celebrity / authority / public figure / whatever said something but rather on their arguments.

Magnus Carlsen and other top players certainly present valid arguments why they believe "chess is in a crisis" (meaning standard chess in classical time controls) and see short time controls and Chess960 (possibly the combination of both) as a solution. But... those are valid arguments for them and other players at their level. For example, one of the arguments is that it's very hard to win a game and I would agree that having draw rates over 70% in some elite tournaments is surely disappointing; but my draw rate on lichess is 7.4% and I'm pretty sure it's not much more OTB. The same goes for opening theory making the games dull and uniteresting; surely a serious problem for 2600+ level players knowing wide variaty of lines beyond move 20. In my games (both online and OTB), we are rarely "in the book" past move 10 and there are games where I was on my own by move 2.

So yes, I can see that Magnus Carlsen and other top players are disappointed by classical (byt time control) standard (by rules) chess of today. I can see why they see Chess960 as one of the solutions and why some of them are frustrated with long time controls and prefer playing rapid or even blitz. But for vast majority of general chess public, it's IMHO trying to solve a problem without making sure first that there actually is a problem to solve. Which is why I'm so disappointed by people mindlessly repeating what Magnus Carlsen says without taking a bit of time to check whether it also applies to them.

bruh