Openings in this century

@RamblinDave said in #18:
I like your theme hypothesis on the early good but small fluctuation advantages (i would have used variations, having less random connotation than fluctuation, but already taken by chess all over the language level spectrum). I am not experienced or knowledgeable enough, but i find the board intriguing at that level myself. like a promise that chess (in one game, or with many games to come) has still plenty of positional uncertainty and hidden emerging mechanism , to be explored, and uncovered..

obviously at my level, any chess is like that, but knowing that there can be such a style of play that does not accelerate attrition toward well known or prepared outcome too early, is kind of good news... for me there is beauty of chess there.. less reflexive moves.. more position staring.

Technicallly, one might talk about evaluation profile at any position of the candidate moves. . not just their number.
SF might help, but it makes a lot of assumptions in order to early reduce move candidates..

Jobava London seems like a relatively new opening that has become fashionable. I'm sure new ones will appear.

@Professor74 said in #1:
> In the first quarter of this century we have seen some little-used openings come to the fore, such as London System in the recent world championship match.

In lower level OTB chess, the London System has been played frequently in more recent years. It's been known for a hundred years (I think the "London" name comes from Capablanca, who played it in a London international tournament).

@Professor74 said in #1:
> In the first quarter of this century we have seen some little-used openings come to the fore, such as London System in the recent world championship match. Do you think many new openings or variations will appear in the remainder of this century? Will chess players continue to play the same openings and variations? Will forgotten/underused openings be more played?

If it were little used it would not be named after cosmopolitan city

@Abigail-III @Caballode3cabezas @CyberElf @dboing @DingChiling @Janellemax20 @Katoh1 @kindaspongey @Moro2000 @Caballode3cabezas @BorisOspasky @RogCov @ineedthedough

I thank all of you for the many positive contributions you have made.

@RamblinDave said in #18:
> My (relatively sketchy) understanding is with perfect play, all decent openings probably lead to drawn endgames or forced repetitions eventually, and openings that aim for quick and direct confrontation and have forcing tactical lines early on are going to bottom out in a draw relatively quickly, which means that while there's still plenty of excitement in them for us mortals, with super-GM levels of prep and accuracy it's often not that hard to navigate through them and get a relatively easy draw. OTOH slower, quieter openings that hold off from early engagement and have lots of non-forced options early on have more potential for getting the opponent out of book by the time things get sharp, with more chances of actually getting an interesting result. So paradoxically, some of the less "aggressive" openings are often actually riskier and more adventurous to play.
>
> I think this is why in the recent World Championship (for instance) Ding was playing the London and the Colle System and that weird h3 QGD and Nepo was playing the Ruy with d3 a lot. I guess someone might find a sudden seam of deep and subtle ideas in the Scotch Gambit or something, but I wouldn't hold your breath for it.

Interesting reflections. I don't care too much that many games end in a draw, as long as these are the result of great battles. About the Scotch Gambit, I've played it little (I've played the Scotch Game a lot more), but I think it deserves to be studied in greater depth.

@coledavis said in #19:
> Ok, it's 20th rather than 21st century, but Boris Spassky resurrected the King's Gambit, which is a very playable opening for white.

I think your comment is quite timely. Maybe we need more creative chess players who have an investigative spirit, who walk unfamiliar paths, who take risks.

@greysensei said in #22:
> Jobava London seems like a relatively new opening that has become fashionable. I'm sure new ones will appear.

Jobava, Rapport, I only mention two creative players. We need more creative chess players to innovate in the opening.

Aaron Nimzowitch, David Bronstein, Vassily Ivanchuk, Vadim Zvjaginsev, Alexander Morozevich, Levon Aronian, Baadur Jobava, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Richard Rapport, and others; all of them represent creativity in chess.

@Caballode3cabezas said in #26:
> Aaron Nimzowitch, David Bronstein, Vassily Ivanchuk, Vadim Zvjaginsev, Alexander Morozevich, Levon Aronian, Baadur Jobava, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Richard Rapport, and others; all of them represent creativity in chess.

None of them were born in this century! Are the players born in this century not creative?

@Caballode3cabezas said in #26:
> Aaron Nimzowitch, David Bronstein, Vassily Ivanchuk, Vadim Zvjaginsev, Alexander Morozevich, Levon Aronian, Baadur Jobava, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Richard Rapport, and others; all of them represent creativity in chess.

I think every top Player ist creative, most of all the strongest.

Especially the very top, Carlsen, Anand, kramnik, kasparov, Karpov and Fischer.

U can neutralize London with englund gambit but with heavy price for the beginner

Dubov Gambit is another new opening that has recently been popularized.