How to annoy the Londoneer :D

@pn2206

No, I don't hate individual players for playing symmetrical openings. Everybody has to find their style. What I don't like is the wholesale migration in super-GM chess to symmetrical openings. In some ways I don't understand it because on the rare occasions when risky defenses are used they actually fare pretty well. Hikaru, for example, was kicking super-GM butt with the King's Indian as recently as 2018 when he beat Caruana with it. In the last couple of years he's switched to the Queen's Gambit Declined and he's dropped from world #3 to #18 and lost about 65 rating points.

Ray Robson told me that engines have proven that having more space matters a lot and the classical, symmetrical defenses are the only ones that don't give up space. While this might be theoretically true I think it's really only relevant to engines playing other engines. However, when humans play humans, I think players have to play to their strengths rather than to the dogma of engines. My favorite GM is Maxime Vachier-Lagrave because he plays the Najdorf, Grünfeld, and King's Indian. He never plays 1 ... e5 in response to 1 e4 and he never plays the black side of the QGD in response to 1 d4. His rating is actually up a bit over the last few years and he's now #5 in the FIDE Live Rating list.

I applaud GMs who are brave enough to go against conventional wisdom (which these days is the "wisdom" of engines). I think they're good for the game and they certainly produce extremely entertaining, unbalanced positions.

@Eleuthero You should tell super GMs you don't agree with their opening choices, maybe they would revert back to the openings you prefer

@Patrizsche wrote to me: "You should tell super GMs you don't agree with their opening choices, maybe they would revert back to the openings you prefer."

Why do you have to get snarky? If you disagree with my premises or conclusions then why don't you enlighten us with your point(s) of view? True debate, where the two sides of a topic lay out their reasoning, is becoming as rare as hen's teeth. These days, there is NO DEBATE because one side (in this case ME) lays out a line of reasoning and the other side just belittles the point of view via sarcasm without revealing their own line of reasoning.

If you have something real to say then say it. Otherwise, try to be a nicer person.

The world moves on never minding if you like it or not. One day people will stop playing chess, but that day isn't here yet. Enjoy while it lasts.

I have some pleasant memories against the LS using either KID as well as ... e6 setups.



My recommendatio; you can do everything but no d7-d5.

Lmao, the only reason white lost this game, is that (s)he lacks tactical skills.

I'm having a hard time arguing back, because I agree with most of what you say. I have no love for engines and usually the engines think my moves are ridiculous, win or lose. I always take gambits, for example, which I think has been proven to be objectively silly.

But consider this, the engines have proposed a challenge to new players. They show that you were not really so correct in stating that flashy moves prove understanding of position. I like the idea of some smart-assery being flushed by chess. There is so much contempt for "dogma," which is only the accumulated wisdom of ages.

Position is all that matters, that has not changed. In fact, it has only become more true.

I see a Fischer victory and I think, "his opponent didn't see something." I see a Carlsen victory and I think, "his opponent was crushed."