Is opening theory really that important?

When you play a lot of games then you can learn a lot of openings.

@Devil_fish said in #39:

Anyway, Morphy's opponent played very poorly. Even a 1200 rated player
have better play than that. Allowed an "easy" tactic in the beginning with queen.
I once saw a tournament game that went 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 4 dxe5 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 dxe5 6 Bc4 Nf6 7 Qb3 b6 etc. Imagine my disappointment! I was tempted to ask, “Do you like the opera?”, but there were a lot of other games still in progress, and I did not want to distract the players.
@boilingFrog said in #41:
When you play a lot of games then you can learn a lot of openings.
There were all those nineteenth century players who went for decades without learning Lasker’s Defense to the Evans Gambit. By the way, don’t you think the water is getting kinda warm?

@bizzylizzy said in #40:

You are highly underestimating Tal. Many of his sacrifices would at least lead to threefold repetition if, and only if, the opponent walked a tightrope line. He has one of the 3rd highest unbeaten streak in chess history among the best players. This was before computers were memorized to make your first 20 or so moves. He did not play some boring top level berlin or equivalent draws.

I also think a little discussed factor is it seems like he was an expert in the opponents feel. If the technical best move gives 0.0 evaluation and there is a sacrifice that gives you a -.02 evaluation and your opponent has to be a machine to find it is that really a better move than if one plays a subpar move that one is very confident to lead to a win? I would argue that if someone has a great understanding of there opponent; For instance a computer that is tuned to find the trickiest move that keeps the draw in hand that computer would have a higher rating than an objectively perfect moving machine. (against imperfect opponents)

We also see this from the best players all the time. They play a move that isn't bad enough to lose but that they are confident their opponent is not likely to be able to handle with the same precision.

Fischer is second best of all time in my opinion. Tal was 4-2-5 against him. Of course Fischer was young in many games but one does not win with bad sacrifices vs Fischer even young Fischer.
I know my chess....in timeperiod Tal played the contenders was'nt that strong compared to these days. With the time the chessplayers become stronger and stronger for each decades no matter computers or not...typical ppl to mention computers all the time.
It's a fact that ppl with time get taller, heavier, faster, smerter, and so on.
Do you really think that Magnus Carlsen are the greatest chessplayers because of acess to computers? Are you that so naive?
Let me say this: his mother is a chemitrist and his det is mathmatecian...When Magnus was 5 yrs old or so he could mention all the capitals in the word and all the cominties+signs in Norway...and his iq is estimated up to 200....with that one of the smartest on this planet. I know everything about him because im self are from Norway.
I read a article...it says example first world champion Wilhelm Steinitz -by computeranalysis his games compared to Magnus Carlsen games by simulations, it says Magnus would have 82% chance to beat him hypotetically...the article also says that Magnus is the ever strongest chessplayer of them all...second and third strongest chessplayer was Kramnik and Anand....by the way a young Anand crushed Tal...I know Tal was old and sick at that time but still. He also lost to Anna Cramlings dad...I doubt if Tal would example outplay or crushed example Nodirbek Abdusattarov. Tal only functioned if he could saq if he couldnt he collapsed, just like against Anna's dad.
Tal var very good just like Morphy but i think they got to much credid and are bit overrated...Even Hikaru have said that if Morphy played to day he would be 2200-2300 player...

@kindaspongey said in #42:

I once saw a tournament game that went 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 4 dxe5 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 dxe5 6 Bc4 Nf6 7 Qb3 b6 etc. Imagine my disappointment! I was tempted to ask, “Do you like the opera?”, but there were a lot of other games still in progress, and I did not want to distract the players.

There were all those nineteenth century players who went for decades without learning Lasker’s Defense to the Evans Gambit. By the way, don’t you think the water is getting kinda warm?

I think I'll smoke what you're smoking ...

And, by the way, convince me you're not a bot brah ...

You are right about the top people getting better over time in every measure. Another aspect to your point is there are more people to draw from the past ages and the cream tends to rise to the top.

Seems like you underestimate the standing on shoulders of giants aspect though. Both the examples mentioned, Morphy and Tal would be great players today as well. do you think scientist of today are greater than Issac Newton because he devoted much of his time to alchemy? It is in fact a hard question to answer. I guarantee you a Newton or similar would be far ahead of most all today if they had access to their own works and the other factors of modern life.

I believe people have a recency bias and its hard for them to really comprehend past greats because of our limited perspective.
Quite and interesting discussion and I believe it comes down to your worldview what side is taken. To be clear I'm not saying objectively better in an absolute sense its clear that you are right on that. Tal won against every world champion (in fact was one) in his era. Foolish to think he would just be an "average GM" if he were to be born today and dedicate in the same way.

P.S. I know Hikaru disagrees with me on the Morphy front and I know that he knows more about the game and the history than I could ever hope to, but I still disagree. He is a chess genius but has never been the undisputed best and doesn't understand the nature of what that would mean. He is not a cultural genius in any sense of the word. I have watched his videos. He's great don't get me wrong but I don't trust his opinion on this. Sure if the best players time traveled to the past yes all these guys would beat Morphy but I tend to think the outcome is less clear if they were put in his shoes or him in their shoes. I think he is talking from a purely technical perspective and if so I agree. Fischer had a very high opinion on Morphy and last I checked he was undisputed world champion and dominated his contemporaries. Something Hikaru hasn't done and won't likely do though he may be really close to best bullet and blitz of all time (apart from Magnus so not even that) I am a fan of Hikaru.

Main point it comes down to whether you think technical best is the best or measure by peers is the best. I get the people that think the current best is the best of all time but it seems rather uniformed to my eyes.

It's like saying harnessing fire, or the invention of the wheel is lesser than a computer or a car. Sure one is more technically masterful but the other is the breakthrough foundation, which is far more important

@boilingFrog said in #44:

I think I'll smoke what you're smoking ...
At least get out of the water first. You can read about the Evans Gambit in #4 here or in the 2013 book of GM Larry Kaufman.
@boilingFrog said in #44:
And, by the way, convince me you're not a bot brah ...
"... Did we not contain conscious brains ourselves, how would we know that other brains are conscious? Truth be told, you can really only know that you are conscious, and it seems polite to give other people the benefit of the doubt. ..." - CGP Grey

Exactly zero people argue Magnus is not a genius and his intelligence seems to be general as well, unlike an idiot savant. Any chess player can have a bad day. Tals dad lost to a Cramling but didn't Calrsen just lose to a couple 2500's? it happens in chess

@kindaspongey said in #46:

At least get out of the water first. You can read about the Evans Gambit in #4 here or in the 2013 book of GM Larry Kaufman.
You're serious ? Throw it at me and I will deal with it.

Incidentally, you seem like a classic no-games troll bot - am I right ?

And I'm not done yet ... you're what makes these forums what they are today. Thanks for all your effort ...

@kindaspongey said in #46:

At least get out of the water first. You can read about the Evans Gambit in #4 here or in the 2013 book of GM Larry Kaufman.
@boilingFrog said in #48:
You're serious ?
Well, the thing about the water was an attempted joke.
@boilingFrog said in #48:
Throw it at me and I will deal with it.
In #4, I already provided a GM Kaufman quote. I think there was also something about it in GM Nunn’s book about Lasker.
@boilingFrog said in #48:
Incidentally, you seem like a classic no-games troll bot - am I right ? ...
I have not played for about four years. The rest seems somewhat subjective. I still read (or take in information somehow or other).
@boilingFrog said in #48:
... you're what makes these forums what they are today. ...
I would not have thought that I was that influential.

Dude, get a life ... this is stupid