"But the point about Fischer Random is that it’s basically the same as the old chess, except that you get rid of the theory, and it’s very easy to remember the rules. That’s my point, you see? I was just looking at a book Sam just gave me. This book about Capablanca. Capablanca had a very interesting game that he proposed. It was 10X10 or something and it had two Kings and extra pieces and you can win the game by mating either of your opponent’s Kings. And it looked like a very creative game, and maybe much better than Fischer Random, but it looks very intimidating. Even for me, right? Top chess player. Very intimidating. All these extra pieces, huge board, two Kings. And if it intimidates me, it will intimidate the average person much more. So there are a lot of games that you can come up with that have practical defects. Not creative defects. But just defects in terms of discouraging people to learn them. You see? That’s my point about Fischer Random. You can learn Fischer Random in 10 seconds, practically. So there is no impediment: you have the same pieces, the same board, all you have to do is get a little electronic shuffler, and in one second you have a position. But of course you could create more creative games than Fischer Random. Maybe, you know, an extra piece, a bigger board, and all kind of things. But my idea... people think I’m anti-chess. No, I’m not anti-chess. I'm pro-chess. I’m trying to keep it alive. It’s just the reverse! I’m not coming up with anything radical at all.(2005)"