Also, consider this, the dragon in the sicilian takes a lot of work to play well; you must keep up with the info at the professional levels, theory goes up and down, comes and goes. I dont think people refuse to play it because it is unsound (from either the white or black side) I think that it's just too much work.
I feel Kasparov left or stopped playing the KID since it is way too much work for him who devotes more time than probably any other player around to opening preparation (or he used too since he is retired, I dont know). He also gave up the Grunfeld, which is another one of those openings that take a lot of work. He has played all indian defenses and maybe all 1.d4 d5 defenses and they come and dissappear and I doubt it is because they are unsound for him. I mean, has the QGA for Black been refuted ?? or the Nimzo??
Now, Kramnik now is mainly a 1.e4 player. Why? is the 1.d4 refuted or not suitable to win at high level chess ? I doubt it. 1.d4 is vast in theory and it should be more than 1.e4 since 1.d4 is closed games, therefore the players are not as force to play this or that way to achieve their aims. In closed games there is more maneuvering since things are not as forcing as in open games.
Most high level players play 1.e4 more than 1.d4. 1.e4 is played way more often than 1.d4. Is 1.d4 unsound? No. Is 1.d4 more work? Yes.
You got the Slave, semi-slav and all those sisters. You have the Nimzo (a lot of theory), the Queens indian, the Catalan, the Grunfeld (which can rival the dragon or any other sicilian in theory, and the slav can do it too), the King's Indian (we all know this one) the classical, the 7...Na6, or 7.... exd4, or Nbd7... or..., the saemisch , the Petrosian, and so on and so on. The QGA, the Dutch, yeah, it's a lot.
|