The core problem is, that chess is essentially a solved game now.
There is no human that can outplay the top chess algorithms. This commodization of top skill, means everyone can afford to play against, and learn from, an entity that is above human skill.
Once this point is achieved, the skill focus dramatically shifts: The better player is the one who can hold and query more data learned from the above-human-skill entity in his human brain. Which, don't get me wrong, is still a beyond-impressive skill at the level of top players, but its not what people really enjoy or mean when they talk about "Chess".
In a very general way, this is a problem that afflicts not just Chess, but all solves games where players have complete information about the game state.
I think this is a wrong take. Sure, opening preparation is important, especially in matches (like the World Championship), but once you're out of prep it's not "just a memory game". Magnus is known for squeezing victories out of dead equal end game positions, not because of memory (they're all new positions) but because of intuition and accuracy.
There is no human that can outplay the top chess algorithms. This commodization of top skill, means everyone can afford to play against, and learn from, an entity that is above human skill.
Once this point is achieved, the skill focus dramatically shifts: The better player is the one who can hold and query more data learned from the above-human-skill entity in his human brain. Which, don't get me wrong, is still a beyond-impressive skill at the level of top players, but its not what people really enjoy or mean when they talk about "Chess".
In a very general way, this is a problem that afflicts not just Chess, but all solves games where players have complete information about the game state.