I think the record for the most consecutive posts at the moment is JonathonB with 6 or 7 consecutive posts somewhere. But they were not just random ones - in each the author actually had something relevant to say.

Chevalier wrote on 05/19/08 at 09:11:28:


I don't know that I agree with this particularly, since this line was played decades ago by Lasker, repeatedly.  Also Pilnik played it a good deal, didn't he?  I admit that only since the 1980s has its strength been really understood.

Amazing indeed. In front of me I have a book called Chess: Indian Systems, based on an MS by Ludek Pachman, edited by BH Wood. It's from around 1973 as it was published shortly after Pachman left Czechoslowakia. In those good old times it was still possible to write a book on the NID, QID, KID, GID and Benoni in slightly more than 300 pages. One of the main lines is the Classical KID with 9.b4. We read:

Quote:

I am also pretty sure 9.b4 was investigated in the Dutch opening series based on Euwe (the typical blue cover series). Maybe Willempie and/or Micawber can verify?

This book also mentions 7.Nf3 in the GID of course because of the original 1922 Grünfeld game. It gives Rubinstein-Alekhine 1924 as a direct equalizer. So on this point Bonsai's claim is justified.

7...Qe8 in the Dutch Leningrad seems to be very recent indeed.

kylemeister wrote on 05/20/08 at 21:08:03:

Back in the 90s when I played the KID, I essentially had three books:

• "Königsindisch Pro & Contra" (GMs Vogt & Knaak, 1992)
• "Königsindisch à la Kasaprow" (by IM Ivan Hausner, 1993)
• "Kasparows Schacheröffnungen" (IM Otto Borik, 1992)

Having briefly leafed through them again, I really think none of these three even mentions that a move such as 9.b4 exists, while sometimes even covering things like 9.a4. And funnily enough when I first ran into the move, I just thought that I was going to easily refute that nonsense over the board, because this move had to be a strategical disaster, after all it was such a dreadfully bad move that all these GMs and IMs hadn't even bothered to mention it...

In recent years one might want to mention

• The Bayonet attack against the KID - when I look at old KID books b2-b4 isn't even mentioned as a possible move.
• The realisation of the strength of 7.Nf3 (as opposed to Bc4+Ne2) for white in the exchange Grünfeld is surely also a great achievement. The same as for b2-b4. Was it Dearing who commented that in some older book that move is not even given in the section starting with "Other feeble tries are..."?
• 4...a6 in the Slav - surely that is a completely shocking concept! Primarily playing a semi-waiting move that otherwise primarily has some prophylactic effects for your b7 pawn seems crazy on move 4, but somehow nearly always seems to allow you to develop your queen's bishop without giving up the centre.
• 7...Qe8 in the Dutch Leningrad, the strategic idea is straightforward, but who would have thought that one can get away with preparing e7-e5 with such a queen move before even moving half the minor pieces and potentially exposing onself to Nc7 forks...

Willempie - yes, quite right. One could make a good case for the Boleslavsky, KID and so forth.

Would we have had them without the hypermoderns, I wonder?

Actually, I suspect Philidor had some pretty big contributions, and also Staunton.

Morphy's 3...a6 in the Ruy was as influential as some of the suggestions here, I would have thought.

How about Nigel Short's slow plan in the Advance Caro? 1e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nf3 e6 5 Be2 etc. 

Some of white's ideas are similar to the Advance French. The main new concept was that the bishop might be misplaced on f5.

The idea was first seen in De Loughry - Bronstein Munich 1958. This may well be the game where Bronstein claimed that after the game his Irish opponent asked him the name of the opening.