26 Apr '12 05:59>
Originally posted by Pacifiqueah yes but this is not what i have stated, naturally there are exceptions, or rather
[b]I was interested in applying universal opening principles which appeared to me were applicable in any situation.
There is no principle in chess, applicable in any situation, without exceptions.[/b]
other principles which have greater bearing on the position depending upon the
dynamics and which modify or in some instances completely over rule other
principles. My favorite being the Fischer v Petrosian game where Fischer exchanged
an active knight for a so called bad bishop so that he could penetrate the seventh
with his rooks. In my humble example the controversy arose over the move Nc3,
demonstrating various principles, development of the pieces, activation of the least
active piece, influence over the center, this was challenged by the assertion that f3
was also a viable alternative which demonstrated the principle of restriction, which it
is and did, the f6 knight is now reduced to a passive piece. Thus this is not so much
an exception simply as the application of a different principle and an example of
where one principle may over rule that of another. Now we are left with exceptions,
but even this is not so easy to express in a concrete way, for example what is the
exception to the principle of development? non development? why and for what
reason? there must be a reason otherwise its an unprincipled choice. Indeed
providing exceptions may be so extensive and dependent upon specific dynamics
that it could be said to fall outwith the term general opening principles.