Originally posted by nimzo5
Obviously I agree with Wargamer on this one.
These days there is a lot of theory in all openings unless you go way off the radar. You can't go in afraid of an opponents opening prep. after all, their rating is their rating if they are that good in the opening then odds are they stink in the middle game or endgame.
So you played a line in the Scotch and but reality is that they probably can count the times their analysis was decisive on one hand.
I have a theory (actual an opinion that I am dressing up with a little presumption) that the classical openings are "classical" because they are relatively straightforward and intuitive.
When chess theory was still early in development, many strong players (in the absence of computers, databases, websites, or even a large number of books or magazines), worked hard, studied, and concluded that the openings we now call "classical" were the best approach to the game. As understanding of the game grew, the best players gravitated to these openings, especially as their results reinforced their ideas of what worked and what didn't.
I am a big hypermodern fan, and there is no doubt that the original hypermoderns revised and expanded much of the classical understanding of the game, but the underlying premises of the classical approach were still intact.
I think there is much to the idea that a person's chess development would benefit from mirroring the development of chess theory as it evolved.
As a side note, I could really see a path of development that starts with Morphy and progresses through each of the world champions, with a focus on what each contributed to the evolution of the game (Kasparov's My Great Predecessors
, but with a more educational slant.) It would also be a fun way to learn.