Bobby Fischer said
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 Fischer Random chess to destroy chess. I invented Fischer Random 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.
You have to understand something about chess. Of course I'm better than Morphy. Why am I better than Morphy? I don’t say I have much more talent than him. I just know much more theory, right? If he came back today, and he could not open a book, let’s say, right? He would do badly even against masters, maybe. That has nothing to do with his talent though right? So when you say I'm better than so and so, it doesn't mean anything 'cause of all this theory in chess. Now if you were to ask if I were the most talented player that's something else.
Question: Do shogi or xiangqi suffer any of the same problems that chess does, according to Fischer, which led him to invent chess960? I mean are there any analogues of chess960 in shogi or xiangqi? I'm not asking about arbitrary variants. I'm asking really about variants created to address an such opening theory problem shogi might have.
Most of what I know about shogi and xiangqi is from tv series like 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. Maybe even go/baduk.) 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.
Oh but I did read that shogi has extremely rare draws. That's fine, but as I understand chess960 wasn't invented mainly to reduce draws. I think the reduction of draws is a 2ndary goal or byproduct.