In a 2006 Iceland radio interview, Bobby Fischer gave his view on why chess no longer satisfied him (presumably a reference to his motivation for inventing Fischerandom Chess):

"[In] chess, so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century didn't know nearly as much as, say, I do and other players know about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they might not do too well, because they'd get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability, because now there is so much more opening theory, so much more memorization. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get the opening advantage against Capablanca, or especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz, easily. Maybe they'd still be able to outplay the young kid of today, but maybe not. Because nowadays when you get the opening advantage, not only do you get the opening advantage, but you know how to play the opening advantage – they have so many examples of what to do from this position. So it's really deadly, it is very deadly... that's why I don't like chess anymore... It's all just memorization and prearrangement, it's a terrible game now. A very un-creative game now."

My first question is, in 2018 is world elite level chess "very un-creative"? A quick Google search revealed some encouraging opinions that it is not, at least.

My second, relatively minor query is whether today a strong 14 year old could normally have a deadly advantage as a result of acquiring an opening advantage against an elite player of any era (my guess would be it's a no-brainer that it would not be the case, unless the kid himself was already an elite player).