Originally posted by Tsekos the punk
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is en tion and prearrangement like it is today.
Bobby Fischer at a Radio Interview, June 27 1999
Not at all. Opening theory is a natural and intriguing part of chess. It is much, like a general studying previous battles and contemplating new strategies or improvements. It's one of the most interesting aspects of chess and gives the game even more depth and personal flavor while allowing us to explore like scientists if we choose. Another plus side is that these theoretical positions tend to be more complex and interesting than I could ever come up with in a typical game with no knowledge of theory. It's true it raises the learning curve a bit but this is negligible for an amateur and most that is worth doing is going to require some effort. Moreover, I find even involved theoretical openings to be a minor problem to learn. Just going through the database and a few key games will impress on me the character of the positions and I will find remembering theory simple. Of course, playing equally well as in my other openings will take longer. However, serious opening study is by no means essential unless your playing level is incredibly high and you can take advantage of small nuances or minuscule advantages in that stage. Even then, a sufficient difference in strength will negate the opening stage. For example, if Rybka started with no book as well as a pawn and move handicap against a typical GM, she would still have excellent chances to win (this has happened and is well-demonstrated). Opening theory is really only relevant in the context of similar playing strengths.
Thus, I don't think FR is a solution since there isn't a problem to solve. Moreover, FR takes away from chess's universality and elegance. In the normal chess position after 1. e4 and 2. d4, the pieces have maximum scope and a myriad of plans exist. FR positions are more awkward and nonsensical - such as with a bishop on h1 where only one real development plan exists. It seems like half the game is trying to reach the scope offered by chess's starting position. Moreover, it ads to the complexity and makes the games less relevant to us since we're unlikely to reach any similar positions.
BTW: While now I find learning openings simple, when I was just starting out, it seemed difficult. Even in the Accelerated Dragon, I'd need to refer to the book to see if I should play Bg7 first or Nc6. It seems that the importance of opening theory and one's ability to learn it is correlated with strength. Most strong players I know have not found theory to be a hurdle except when they were starting out. After that, maintenance was easy and sometimes not even necessary since they understood the positions well. Although, I do know a few people that have put a lot of effort in memorizing theory and managed it successfully but can't even touch an 1800 player because the rest of their game is so much weaker.
Was Bobby Fischer right?
10 Nov '08 16:12
Back to Top