Yes indeed, I agree -- good points and a great gag!

[quote author=Michael Ayton link=1143253444/0#6 date=1143479795]There's a lot of truth in these words, but a danger too, I think. Take the Pelikan Sicilian for instance. Nowadays this would surely have to rate as a "chess opening" in Markovich's terms, but even comparatively recently it could credibly have been regarded as one of those "suboptimal" enthusiasms (albeit one of the better and more complicated such). The moral is obvious, and so is the tension. While the problem is perhaps not so much an interest in currently-thought-dubious openings per se as an exaggerated preoccupation with them or some of them, the line dividing the two can be extremely fine, and how can we always know on which side of it to place those toilers who might be developing or rehabilitating the "Pelikans" of the future?

And then, just what should we regard as a respectable chess opening? How should we regard certain openings that we think of as controversial at the present stage of chess evolution -- the Kalashnikov Sicilian, Alekhine's Defence, the Benoni? And what "model" of chess evolution should we hold to here? -- is the incidence of as-yet-unrehabilitated Pelikan-equivalents likely to be falling, rising, or remaining constant?



[/quote]


Excellent points.  I perhaps conveyed the impression that I was advocating that one always stick to the main lines.  I didn't mean that, only that, to the degree that a player wants to make progress in chess, he should learn the main lines of the chess openings and not stick with these everlasting minor systems that attract so much discussion here.  I mean, I think I'll start a thread, "Which is more underrated -- 1. g4 or 1. Na3?"

Paddy's words above are wise.  I'm continually amazed -- and disgusted, frankly -- by the frequency with which suboptimal, early deviations are advocated here as "underrated" and as a means of saving on study time.  Learn the chess openings, for crying out loud, or give up chess.

Hm... I'm not very convinced by this reply, especially where the Scandinavian is depicted as 'non-main-line'...
It is not true either that the Scandinavian is so very limiting : Black can choose for either 2. ...Qd5 or 2..Nf6, for instance, with more choices in the next move...
And the type of middlegame reached is also very 'rich', as may be gathered from the kinship to lines from the Caro-Kann and the French Rubinstein/Burn.

Quote:


Let's take the Scotch as an example: say you buy Collin's repertoire book and have to study 30+ pages to learn a Scotch repertoire; you have to learn to deal with two main branches 4...Bc5 and 4...Nf6, as well as a few minor lines that are nevertheless playable for Black. Your opponent has only to learn one line well; hence players tend to specialise as Black in either 4...Bc5 (see Davies's book) or 4...Nf6 (Emms) and who's to say they don't know it and understand it better than you?

In fact in sharp, forcing openings, Black's task of preparing a repertoire can actually be easier, as he gets to choose the defence and therefore also  to some extent the degree of sharpness; that's probably why so many strong players answer 1 e4 with 1...e5 as a long-term repertoire choice, despite the fact that it seems a lot of work "up-front".

With quieter "limiting" openings such as the Centre Counter with 2...Qxd5, OK as Black you can usually reach a familiar middle-game structure but at the expense of some passivity. And once you get strong enough for your games to start appearning in databases, if that's all you play, you become an easy target for preparation and you find every game as Black a struggle to equalise, with few winning chances.

So I don't think there are any easy answers or short cuts. In general, I guess main lines are still probably the best for both practical results and long-term development as a player, saving your creativity for the middle game.

Mikhail Tal was one of the most popular players for producing entertaining chess along with good results - yet look at his openings in his most successful events over his career - main lines mostly; his few opening experiments generally flopped and failed to attract a wider following.

I think it's also notable that many of the rising generation of young stars (Magnus Carlsen for instance) have very wide repertoires (so wide that you think "how can they do that?!) but based on main lines.