An interesting blogpost I think. I especially found fascinating how he made a implicit division between professional players and others.

MNb wrote on 03/05/09 at 13:55:20:


Well, perhaps "joke" was the wrong word - "attempts at humour" might be more accurate. You will see what I mean if you look at the whole of his blog.

In this particular article, Spraggett got nothing wrong as far as I can see.

" I assume that his argument about the first opening theoretician is meant as a myth." 
MNb - He is quoting Lasker here.

It is clear from Spraggett's article that he is well aware that collecting and studying games and variations is not a modern phenomenon, but he is arguing that the sheer volume of data now available, and the availability of powerful IT tools with which today's players can process this data, has brought about a huge change to our game, one that especially impacts on the lives of sub-elite professional players like himself, who try to make their living playing in international opens.

Rather than complaining, giving up, taking up poker or wanting to change the game of chess somehow (e.g. Fischer-Random), Spraggett is suggesting that such players as himself (not necessarily every chessplayer) should take up the challenge, and the best way to do this is to have a broad repertoire (like Larsen - of course he could also have mentioned Timman, or Miles for that matter, ed. 06.03.09 or, from earlier times Bronstein or his hero Tartakower) and present a "moving target".

I feel that this is a positive response, one that is good for the future of our game and therefore one that should be applauded, even if we patzers do not feel we have the need, the desire or the capacity to follow his lead.

Oh dear I don't think I will be following Spraggett's advice. Don't think will be getting good results if have to rely on my natural skill and talent.

Antillian wrote on 03/04/09 at 12:15:37:


well Spraggett used to have a very narrow opening repertoire but has apparently been mixing it up lately. 

Perhaps it has to do with his status as a professional player that has to ply his trade in opens where success depends on dispatching weaker opponents, especially with black. When these players use databases and look for drawing lines against your black repertoire (which are aviable in most openings) I can imagine it can be frustrating. It might make big difference in earnings.

Of course, for us average joes, knowing one repetoire decently will get you along nicely. 

I think a new trend may emerge in the coming years : looking for fresh positions, which suits the players but not his opponent, even if these positions are almost equal from a theoretical perspective.

I can see this trend in Carlsen's games : he doesn't try to bamboozle his opponents with mighty computer novelties, but rather goes his own way and sometimes settles for simple positions (for example his play as white against the Sicilian Najdorf) from where his talent can express itself.

I think that's a very nice trend for chess fans, because it could mean that chess will revert to what it is really : a human minds contest, rather than a distance Rybka-struggle

At the amateur level, I made the switch myself a few years ago and I'm very happy with it. I'm trying to play unusual systems, which may unsettle my opponent, rather than heavy main-lines, and I'm having very satisfactory results so far + an increased playing pleasure !

I think this is a question of colour.

With White I use I play "serve and volley" (like Roger Federer) - 1.e4 and go for the mainlines. I only look up databases when I am playing White.

With Black I try to be a moving target - playing 1...e5, 1...e6, 1...c5 against 1.e4 and KingsIndian, NimzoQueensIndian and SlavSemislav against 1.d4. I also used the Budapest Gambit and the Dutch occasionally. I dont care about Database here - just a quick look if he reguarely plays a strange line (then I would try to find a surprising answer there).

Sometimes my opponent uses the same tactics - if it was with White I always got the better position with Black (e.g. a d4-player choosing e4), because he somehow gave away the natural advantage. I simply play my main lines then and let me show what he has in his sleeve (usually not much).  If it was with Black (Thats when I looked up something in the database to prepare and he deviated) very often original play resulted, cause in that case I try to "turn off my opening book" and play the position without trying to remember whats recommended.

Successful? - Well... finally it all depends on the strength of the opponents - thats the simple conclusion.

Anyway I have a lot of fun with this approach.