In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more.
[Capablanca] wanted to change the rules already, back in the twenties, because he said chess was getting played out. He was right. Now chess is completely dead. It is all just memorization and prearrangement. It’s a terrible game now. Very uncreative.
and (emphasis mine)
I love chess, and I didn't invent Fischerandom chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischerandom chess to keep chess going. Because I consider the old chess is dying, or really it's dead. A lot of people have come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10x8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I'm really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavour. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it's not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.
2 Questions: Does shogi, xiangqi or other co-hyponyms suffer any of the same problems that chess does, according to Fischer, which led him to invent chess960? Are there any analogues of chess960 in shogi, xiangqi or other co-hyponyms?
Notes to explain what I understand and to hopefully further clarify this question:
Note 1: I mean I really don't see any difference. They're abstract strategy mathematical board games that have pieces and stuff already on the board (unlike go) and there's always the same starting setup, soooo...
ETA Note 1.1: There seems to be an answer about how xiangqi is indeed like standard chess and yet another an answer about how shogi isn't. Most of what I know about shogi is from Shion no Ou, but I really do not see how standard chess is unique in this or at least how shogi isn't the same this regard. Again, they are all mathematical and abstract strategy games that involve pieces on a board and have the same starting position of the pieces. (I believe it's the same with draughts/chequers, but of course in this case all the pieces at the start move the same). In each game, opening theory is I believe not only extremely viable to study but will dominate a very large portion of what a player ought to study.
ETA Note 2: Actually, I think the same problem will befall, for example the chess variants closer to the standard (in terms of the pieces used), such as 4 player chess, bughouse, crazyhouse, torpedo chess (the torpedo pawn thing), '5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel': The initial setup is always the same, so it seems like, eventually, it's just gonna be about openings. Of course, each of these chess variants can be fixed in this regard by doing chess960 type shuffles or something.