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?
Prediction exercises are "dangerous" but I'm encouraged to state that several new gambits will appear. Additionally some existing gambits will be revitalized.
Oi m8 thats a propa crackin question u got there ya know reckon well see some new openins n stuff poppin up in chess world like ya kno players aint gonna just ditch the ol tried n true stuff but theres room for some new things innit
n bout them forgoten or underused openins like mate I think its just a matter of time some clever bloke n his mates bring em back into the limelight ya know its like fashion innit wots old is new again n all that
but dont get me wrong m8 classics aint goin nowhere like still see folks playin ol Ruy Lopez Sicilian or wotever but there be a fair mix of new stuff too ya know issabout keepin game interestin n catchin yer opponent off guard n all
I'm not good at making predictions but I'd like to see new variations in English opening.
I think @DingChiling sums it up nicely. Theres bond to be new openings and theories but the tried and true methods will not be forgotten.
Unless theres a revolutionary advancement in chess computers stuff gonna be pretty much the same for a long time.
@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?
AFAICT the big shift in Super GM chess at the moment is away from preparing long, relatively forcing lines - like, tricky novelties deep in the Najdorf or the Grunfeld - and towards looking for much earlier deviations in relatively quiet and non-forcing openings, leading to positions which are relatively quiet but where both players are actually thinking for themselves and thus at risk of making mistakes from an earlier stage.
I kind-of like this trend - I mean, it'd be great if people could still be discovering the Marshall Attack or the Yugoslav Attack from scratch and having to find new ideas over the board in super-sharp positions the whole time, but in practice the sharper (sound) lines just seem to be getting increasingly mapped out by computers and more likely to result in both players blitzing out thirty moves of mindbending computer theory leading to a draw by repetition or something. So quieter starts that often seem to lead to more interesting stuff later seems like a good development.
@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?
That depends on what you still call "the opening". If you put the cut-off too early, then the answer is "no", because everything before the cut-off will already have been played, so it can't be new.
OTOH, if you put the cut-off too late, then the answer will be "yes". Given you are far enough in the game, it's very likely you have reached a position which have never occurred before, hence, it's "new".
when does an game sequence stops being part of opening theory or knowledge or data.
Lc0 on one hand would not know the difference in training as only mapping from terminal outcome and propagating statistically backward what it learns and keeps finally summarized in its weights. opening "knowledge" long term predictions precision fall in off from there... that is just about finding the properties of the board not 2 players chess, ok... but still something.
when does deep novelty finding differs from just playing chess and should be called opening "something".
The era of the openings is over, now everybody plays everything.
It would be beautiful to return to romantic chess in which pieces were sacrificed in the opening to accelerate development.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.