..
An accordian player posted a somewhat flawed analogy, for in music, one plays
essentially predetermined notes from beginning to end; whereas in chess, one
*chooses* which "notes" to play, and only at the beginning is it necessary (or
at least prudent) to follow any preset pattern with total accuracy. And in
the middlegame, one can sometimes play any tune one wishes, so long as the
notes are on-key, and the musician knows his scales and his arpeggios.




Of course some might argue that the beauty of music comes from this
complexity but those thoughts must be swept aside in order to allow
the masses to participate without discriminating against those without
the dedication to practise and memorise all those unneeded notes.



I think the point has been missed. To wit: a significant portion of nearly
every chessgame consists in memorized-by-rote moves, which are often mindlessly
regurgitated by two patzers, who, upon eventually finding themselves in terra
incognita, stumble about like blind squirrels until one of them gets lucky
enough to recognize a familiar endgame, or a hackneyed mating-attack. :-)



Of course, the point -- that the beauty lies (in part) in its complexity --
is spot-on. Yet chess would retain that same complexity, even if it were
somehow stripped of the rote memorization of heavily-studied openings.
For example, shuffle-chess or random-chess is no less complex than standard
chess. If anything, it becomes even *more* complex.