exigentsky wrote on 08/04/08 at 03:57:23:

I think that is probably quite independent of the strength of opposition (at least as long as we don't manage to become GMs - it works pretty well at 2200 level) and is something that has been proposed e.g. by Palliser in his "Play 1.d4" book. To me this certainly makes sense, as long as one (a) likes the resulting not too sharp positions and (b) they are not completely unpromising (some lines are so theoretical, because they are ambitious...).

exigentsky wrote on 08/04/08 at 03:57:23:


Actually there is no clear correlation between an opening's topicality and its 'theoreticity,' if I may use that term.  Just look at the King's Gambit with 3...g5, for example.  For a few years  I've been dabbling in Alekhine's Defense, hardly a popular opening any more, but it is quite theoretical in many lines.

Also I disagree that there's an inverse correlation between a player's propensity to prepare variations and his strength.  It's a direct correlation, rather, or so I would argue.  There are of course very strong players that don't prepare much, but in general, the better players prepare more, or so I think.

One thing one does notice is that the strongest players don't usually give us amateurs a chance to play our prepared lines.

I've found that quite a few players in the 1500+ range know the main openings quite well. This is natural due to the importance of the positions, the large quantity of material and the frequency with which they occur. Like in computer chess, my guess is that staying in book longer tends to help the weaker player. Moreover, it seems more likely that an upset will occur since the weaker player may know that particular line extremely well and catch you in their preparation. In a sharp complicated position where one knows the moves and traps while the other is working it all out, this is possible. Although, I agree that stronger players are better overall and this is still unlikely. Finally, given the topical nature of the highly theoretical openings, they require more maintenance. Seeing masters like Mike Splane play a lot of offbeat stuff with great success at a club I frequent, I'm wondering if it's really worth playing highly theoretical openings like the Najdorf when there are far lesser known and analyzed sound alternatives. I suppose that once you go quite a bit above 2200, some of that offbeat stuff may not hold up so well, but below that, it looks like the most effective method in terms of both time and results.

BTW: I suppose I'm also wondering if solid, balanced and not excessively sharp openings might not prove more consistently successful. In something like the Najdorf or Semi-Slav, you can make one wrong move and end up in disaster.