Openings in this century

@Abigail-III @Caballode3cabezas @CyberElf @dboing @DingChiling @Janellemax20 @Katoh1 @kindaspongey @Moro2000 @RamblinDave @Caballode3cabezas
I really thank you for your comments. Preparing novelties so they appear after the first twenty/thirty moves is exhausting. As former world champion Robert Fischer said, it's ridiculous. To innovate in the initial stage of the game, there seem to be two approaches:

1. Come up with new gambits or early exchange sacrifices.
2. Focus towards an easy-to-play middlegame/ending.

What do you think?

"... It is not so long ago that a game in which neither party advanced his e-pawn two squares was a rarity. Now such games, at least in the contests of masters, have become the rule.
Many causes have contributed thereto. The other openings are already well known, and to try to introduce winning innovations into them has become a very risky business. In the close openings, on the contrary, not only is our knowledge limited, but even our analytical research has failed so far to produce definite and incontrovertible conclusions, for the results become perceptible only after many moves in a long drawn-out ending. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)

@kindaspongey said in #12:

"... It is not so long ago that a game in which neither party advanced his e-pawn two squares was a rarity. Now such games, at least in the contests of masters, have become the rule.

This was like, a 100 years ago. Chess analysis has improved exponentially ever since computers. So i really doubt this is still relevant.

maybe there is a suggestion by using Lasker older quote that things may have some similarities across era. Not the exact same thing but a similar apect. That there are waves of characteristics that come and go, even at highest level. Perhaps that chess is still big, and even highest level have not convered all of it (looking at the big tree not just in the depth direction but transcending ones).

so Lasker's quote may need adapting. but might be relevant for the "become" more than the exact rule in question.

"... Despite the sharp nature of [the Evans Gambit], the theory has not evolved that much in recent years due to a marked lack of interest by GMs. ..." - GM Glenn Flear (2010)

@kindaspongey said in #15:

"... Despite the sharp nature of [the Evans Gambit], the theory has not evolved that much in recent years due to a marked lack of interest by GMs. ..." - GM Glenn Flear (2010)

Good point. Why this lack of interest in these gambits? The last time I saw this gambit at the top level was in Kasparov vs. Anand, Tal Memorial, 1995.

"... Until very recently, many active tournament players, upon reading a book on -- for example -- the Italian Game, probably had the impression of entering a museum. A museum of opening theory, where every display case shows how openings USED to be looked at in a very, very distant past.
But during the 1990s this situation changed rather suddenly. With the aid of that new tool the computer, many ancient openings were examined afresh with the result that some of them have been written off again (this time perhaps for good), but some have been restored to something of their former glory. In fact, we are still in the middle of this process today. Some of the old variations are still waiting for their turn. ..." - GM Paul van der Sterren (2009)

@Professor74 said in #16:

Good point. Why this lack of interest in these gambits? The last time I saw this gambit at the top level was in Kasparov vs. Anand, Tal Memorial, 1995.

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.

Ok, it's 20th rather than 21st century, but Boris Spassky resurrected the King's Gambit, which is a very playable opening for white.

@coledavis and I played it quite well as I remember.