Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:16:12 04/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 1999 at 00:55:23, Gene Ward Smith wrote: >On April 02, 1999 at 18:13:47, Charles Milton Ling wrote: > > >>I do not think that the claim that 1. d4 is White's strongest move is "amazing". >> Bogolyubov once wrote a book with the title "1. d4!"... (Of course, to claim >>that Bogolyubov was the strongest Chess player ever, would, indeed, be amazing > >Gruenfeld once remarked that he played 1. d4 because he didn't make mistakes >in the opening, a remark Fischer repeated, only for 1. e4. None of that >is very amazing, but what would be amazing would be for any of it (including >Berliner's notions) to be correct. They are almost certainly wrong, for >a very simple reason: the enormous praxis of grandmaster level chess >would reveal it. Opening systems are the result of a ruthless Darwinian >process; weaknesses are exposed an exploited continually and relentlessly. >The result is mislabled "theory" but it does give a deeper insight than >any one person, with or without the aid of a system, is likely be able to. I have questions about the notion that openings are reexamined by GM's each time they play. I suspect that (even for GM's) when things are going along according to plan, they just play the move that was tested out before most of the time. While it is true that a GM once sat and thought for a very large portion of the allotted time on the first move for white, this sort of thing is surely a rarity rather than the average case. And when they do ponder for a while, I suspect it is more likely that they are wondering about which standard variation they should use rather than inventing something new when playing an opening.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.