Friday, April 27, 2018

Fashion part 2

My previous article proved that there exists an enormous variety of openings. It is today completely impossible even as super-professional to know all existing deviations in your repertoire by heart. Nevertheless we shouldn't overestimate the value of openings especially at amateur-level. Many of my opponents don't play critical lines at all and just want to skip the opening to get a playable position in which the player with the strongest technique instead of memory can win.

I mean an ambitious player should rather focus the study of openings only at the critical lines. The many less dangerous systems can be checked too but in most cases it is sufficient to develop your pieces and get an acceptable middle-game. Besides even if you concentrate at the remaining important openings then still a lot of study remains as we can see by the testimonies of many professionals.

I believe it is not so easy for an amateur to make the distinction between important and less critical openings. How should I recognize which openings I need to study or which ones can I ignore? A coach can surely help here but not everybody has access to such luxury. In any case it is wrong to believe that openings played by higher rated players will automatically be more profound. As proof I checked my 100 most recently played games which I split in ratinggroups. For each of the groups I defined the average depth of the opening (linked to the deviation compared with earlier played games). I start with the games in which I had white.
For black we don't see any important difference.
So it seems there exists no link between somebodies rating and the opening-knowledge. No that is a wrong assumption. A higher rated player will have a better knowledge about openings. The confusion is created by the mix between opening-knowledge and opening-novelties. 99% of my opponents are followers. I mean that they will rarely use original ideas which are worked out at home in their openings. This isn't a surprise as the rating-groups consist almost exclusively of amateurs spending little or no time at doing individual research of openings.

The real pioneers and leaders of openings are of course our top-players and we should not forget correspondence-players. If we want to know which openings are critical then we should first check their games. This is something I do already for some years see e.g. how I described the preparation of my games in the article using databases or check my article the expert part 2 in which I stated that I focus at the games of +2600 rated players.

However keeping up to date the critical openings is something easier said than done as today we have more than 200 + 2600 rated active players. So every day there are novelties popping up which a professional needs to check. Last the Dutch top-grandmaster Anish Giri twittered that "If more than 2 twics are missing on your laptop then something went wrong in the routines." In my article how much money do you spend at chess I also wrote that I download at least twice per year the free twics but I don't have/ spend the time to filter all relevant +2600 games for my repertoire to study the novelties.

I guess for most amateurs it is the same. You can't expect amateurs working every day at their repertoire. Besides it doesn't make much sense. Much more interesting for us is to use summaries made by a professional which explains all the new critical opening-lines. This allows us to get up to date very quickly by a minimum of effort. Openingbooks and dvds are our first address to check. The disadvantage of those media is that they are very quickly outdated and can't manage to keep track of the latest trends. To really follow the fashion, chess-magazines need to be consulted preferably with the accent solely at openings. I recommend 2 subscriptions: and chessbase magazine.

Of course you will see quite some overlap between both magazines. Although different authors are working for the magazines, the same trends are noticed. That was last the case for the Armenian Winawer-line of the French defense Both published beginning of January a summary of the most recent developments in that system see chesspublishing January 2018 and chessbase magazine 182. Strangely I encountered the line already before newyear in my game against the Belgian expert Nathan De Strycker played  in the 56nd Christmas-tournament of Deurne.
[Event "Kersttornooi Deurne"] [Site "?"] [Date "2017.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Brabo"] [Black "De Strycker, N."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C18"] [WhiteElo "2310"] [BlackElo "2200"] [PlyCount "77"] [EventDate "2017.??.??"] [CurrentPosition "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Qg4 Kf8 { (Nathan already plays awhile the Armenian-line of the Winawer so got somehow aware by this quickly becoming popular trend.) } 8.Nb5 { (I never checked Kf8 so I spent a lot of time at the board figuring out what could maybe the best move. Nb5 is today considered as critical but I couldn't detect any advantage for white.) } 8...Bc7?! { (Nathan feared my opening-knowledge or just mixed the lines. Anyway here Bb6 is the mainline.) } 9.f4?! { (If white wants to refute black's last move then he must play Qxd4. I considered that move too exotic to play without any analysis done at home so I chose for a more solid approach.) } ( 9.Qxd4! Nc6!? 10.Qc5+ Nge7 11.Nxc7 Qxc7 12.Nf3 b6! 13.Qc3 d4!? 14.Qc4 Ng6! $14 ) 9...Bd7 10.Nxd4 Bb6 11.Qd1 Qc8 12.Bb2 Ba4 13.Bd3 Ne7 14.Ngf3 Nbc6?! { (This appears to be inaccurate as black's bishop at a4 could become uncomfortable. Stronger is a6.) } 15.Qd2?! { (Ne2 would have been better to profit from black's last move.) } 15...g6? { (Black wants to discourage f5 but again a6 is necessary to support the bishop of a4.) } 16.Rc1? { (I neither notice that Ne2 followed by Nc3 opposes black's plans.) } 16...Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Qd8 18.O-O Bxd4+ 19.Nxd4 Qb6 20.c3 Rc8 21.g4 h5? { (Black underestimates or miss my next move. Mandatory was Nc6 to exchange quickly some pieces to counter the attack.) } 22.f5 gxf5 23.gxf5 exf5?! { (Somewhat more accurate is first Nxf5 and only next exf5.) } 24.Bxf5?! { (Komodo show the very precise b5 which profits from black's inferior move-order. The idea of b5 is to threaten with Rb1 followed by Rb4 to challenge the bishop of a4. Naturally this is too difficult for me and I chose for a more normal continuation.) } 24...Rc4?! { (More stubborn is Nxf5 but the position is already very difficult anyway.) } ( 24...Nxf5! 25.Rxf5 Qh6 26.Qxh6+ Rxh6 27.e6 Rc7 28.Kf2 Rg6 29.Re1 Re7 30.Ree5 $16 ) 25.Kh1 Ke8 26.Bd3 Rxd4 { (This exchange-sacrifice is despair and I have no difficulties anymore to conclude the game.) } 27.cxd4 Bd7 28.Qf4 Be6 29.Rc5 Rg8 30.Rg1 Rg4 31.Rxg4 hxg4 32.Qh6 a6 33.Qh8+ Kd7 34.Qb8 Nc6 35.Qd6+ Ke8 36.Bg6 fxg6 37.Qxe6+ Kf8 38.Rxd5 Ne7 39.Qxb6 1-0
I was lucky that my opponent couldn't remember well the analysis of this line as otherwise the game could've gone differently. As I don't have a subscription, I decided to make my own extensive analysis about the opening. I was surprised that this hypermodern-system is very playable for black see below the summary. I made my analysis using the modern monte carlo-mechansim so by playing many quick computer-games see my article computers achieve autonomy.
[Event "Frans Armeense variant met 7...Kf8"] [Site "?"] [Date "2018.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [ECO "C18"] [PlyCount "57"] [WhiteElo ""] [BlackElo ""] [CurrentPosition "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxd4 7.Qg4 Kf8 { (This peculiar move gains quickly popularity. Before almost exclusively Ne7 is played as I got twice on the board by the Belgian expert Linton Donovan.) } 8.Nb5 { (The theoreticians consider this the main-line.) } ( 8.Qxd4 Bb6 9.Qf4 ( 9.Qd2 Nc6 10.Nf3 Bc7 11.Qe2 a6 12.Na4 b6 13.h4 h5 14.g3 $11 { [%eval 0,28] } ) 9...Ne7 10.Na4 ( 10.Bd3 Ng6 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.Nb5 Qh4 13.Qxh4 Rxh4 14.Nf3 Rc4 15.Kd1 Bd7 $15 { [%eval -35,25] } ) ( 10.Nf3 Ng6 11.Qg3 Nd7 ( 11...Nc6 12.Bb2 h5 13.h4 Nd4 14.Bd3 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 Bd7 $11 { [%eval -1,27] } ) 12.Bd3 Bc7 13.Bg5 Qe8 14.Nb5 Bb8 15.Nd6 Ngxe5 $11 { [%eval -5,29] } ) 10...Ng6 ( 10...Qc7 11.Nf3 Ng6 12.Qd2 Nxe5 13.Nxb6 axb6 14.Bb2 Nbc6 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 $11 { [%eval 0,33] } ) 11.Qd2 Nxe5 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Bb2 Qc7 14.Nf3 Nxf3+ 15.gxf3 f6 $11 { [%eval 0,30] } ) ( 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.Qb4+ ( 9.a4 Nc6 10.Ba3+ Nge7 11.Nf3 Kg8 12.Bd3 Nxa5 13.O-O Nec6 14.Rfe1 $15 { [%eval -37,25] } ) 9...Ne7 10.Qxc3 Nbc6 11.a6 d4 12.axb7 Bxb7 13.Qc5 Qb6 14.Qxb6 $11 { [%eval -14,29] } ) 8...Bb6 { (It is this idea which has rehabilitated this line.) } 9.Bb2 ( 9.Nf3 Nc6 10.Bb2 Nge7 ) 9...Nc6 10.Nf3 ( 10.f4 a6 11.Nd6 Bc7 12.Nxc8 h5 13.Qf3 Rxc8 14.Bd3 g6 15.Ne2 Nh6 $15 { [%eval -54,25] } ) 10...Nge7 11.Bd3 { (Today we mainly focus at Bd3 to search for an advantage.) } ( 11.Nbxd4 { (In practice this move has been chosen more often. The line is not totally exhausted but anyway is highly doubtful white has anything.) } 11...h5 12.Qf4 ( 12.Qg5 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 ( 13.Bxd4 Nc6 14.Qxd8+ Bxd8 15.Bc5+ Be7 16.Bd6 f6 17.c4 fxe5 18.Bxe5 $11 { [%eval 0,26] } ) 13...Ng6 14.Qe3 ( 14.Qxd8+ Bxd8 15.Bd3 ( 15.Nb5 Bd7 16.Nd6 Ke7 ( 16...Bc7 17.Bd3 Nf4 18.Nxb7 $11 { [%eval 0,25] } ) 17.Nxb7 $11 { [%eval 0,26] } 17...Bc7 18.Be2 $11 { [%eval -7,25] } ) 15...Nf4 16.Bf1 Ng6 17.Bd3 Bd7 18.Ne2 $11 { [%eval 0,28] } ) 14...Bd7 15.Bd3 ( 15.Be2 Ba4 16.Bd3 Rh6 17.O-O Kg8 18.c3 Rc8 19.Rfe1 a6 20.Rac1 Bb5 $11 { [%eval 0,30] } ) ( 15.a4 Qe7 16.c3 Kg8 17.f4 Nh4 18.Qd3 Rh6 19.g3 Ng6 20.h4 a6 $11 { [%eval 0,28] } ) 15...Kg8 16.O-O Qe8 17.h3 a6 18.g3 Bb5 19.Rfe1 Qd7 20.Qg5 Bxd3 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) ( 12.Qh4 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 ( 13.Bxd4 Nc6 14.Qxd8+ Bxd8 15.Bc5+ Be7 16.Bd6 Bd7 17.c4 Rc8 18.Rc1 $11 { [%eval -3,27] } ) 13...Qc7 14.Qg5 Ng6 15.Bd3 Qxe5+ 16.Qxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe6+ Bxe6 18.Bxe5 $11 { [%eval 0,33] } ) 12...Ng6 13.Nxc6 ( 13.Qe3 Qc7 14.Bd3 Ncxe5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Nxe6+ Bxe6 17.Qxe5 Qxe5+ 18.Bxe5 $11 { [%eval 0, 34] } ) 13...bxc6 14.Qd2 Nh4 15.Nxh4 ( 15.Qf4 Ng6 16.Qd2 ( 16.Qc1 Nh4 17.Qf4 Ng6 18.Qd2 Nh4 19.Nxh4 Qxh4 20.Bd3 a5 21.O-O $11 { [%eval 0,33] } ) 16...Nh4 17.Nxh4 Qxh4 18.Bd3 a5 19.O-O g6 20.Bc3 Kg7 21.g3 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) ( 15.Ng5 Qe7 16.Qf4 ( 16.a4 Rb8 17.Nf3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 c5 19.b5 g6 20.Be2 Bc7 21.O-O $15 { [%eval -46,29] } ) 16...Ng6 17.Qd2 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 f6 19.Nf3 fxe5 20.Nxe5 Kg8 21.Bd3 $11 { [%eval -10,29] } ) 15...Qxh4 16.Bd3 ( 16.Rd1 Qe4+ 17.Qe2 Qf4 18.Qd2 Qxd2+ 19.Rxd2 a5 20.b5 Bb7 21.a4 $11 { [%eval -26,30] } ) 16...g6 17.O-O $11 { [%eval 9,27] } 17...a5 18.Rfc1 ( 18.Bc3 $11 { [%eval 0,28] } 18...Kg7 19.g3 Qg4 20.bxa5 Bd8 21.Rfb1 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) 18...Ba6 19.Bxa6 Rxa6 20.c4 dxc4 21.Qe2 $11 { [%eval 6,31] } ) ( 11.Qh4 Bd7 12.Nbxd4 ( 12.Nfxd4 Nxd4 13.Nxd4 Ng6 14.Qg3 Qh4 15.Qxh4 Nxh4 16.a4 a6 17.a5 $11 { [%eval -11,27] } ) 12...Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Nf5 14.Bxb6 Nxh4 15.Bxd8 Nxf3+ 16.gxf3 Rxd8 17.Bd3 $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) 11...Ng6 12.Qg3 ( 12.Bxg6 hxg6 13.O-O Kg8 14.Nbxd4 Ne7 15.a4 Bd7 16.a5 Bc7 17.Rfc1 $11 { [%eval -25,25] } ) 12...f6 13.Bxg6 hxg6 14.Nbxd4 ( 14.Bxd4 Nxd4 15.Nbxd4 Bd7 16.O-O Qe8 17.Nb3 Rc8 18.Nc5 Bxc5 19.bxc5 Rxc5 20.Nh4 $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) ( 14.exf6 e5 15.fxg7+ ( 15.Nxe5 Qe8 16.f4 gxf6 17.O-O fxe5 18.Nd6 Qe7 19.fxe5+ Bf5 20.Nxf5 $11 { [%eval -14,30] } ) 15...Kxg7 16.Nxe5 Qe8 17.O-O-O Qxe5 18.Nxd4 Qxg3 19.Nxc6+ d4 20.fxg3 $11 { [%eval -6,32] } ) 14...Nxe5 15.Nxe5 fxe5 $11 { [%eval 25,30] } 16.Qxe5 ( 16.Nf3 e4 17.Ne5 ( 17.Qxg6 Qe7 18.Ne5 Bd7 19.Qg3 Be8 20.c4 Kg8 21.O-O Rd8 22.Rae1 $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) 17...Kg8 18.Qxg6 Qe7 19.c4 Bd7 20.Nxd7 Qxd7 21.O-O-O Qf7 22.Qxf7+ $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) ( 16.Ne2 e4 17.c4 ( 17.Nf4 Kg8 18.Qxg6 Qe7 19.Bxg7 Qxg7 20.Qe8+ Qf8 21.Qg6+ Qg7 22.Qe8+ $11 { [%eval 0,62] } ) 17...Qh4 18.cxd5 e3 19.fxe3 Qxg3+ 20.Nxg3 Bxe3 21.Rd1 Kg8 22.Bd4 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) 16...Rh5 17.Qg3 { (This seems whites most critical move but a draw must be the most likely result.) } ( 17.Nxe6+ $11 { [%eval 22,27] (This exchange has been played already twice in practice. Black still has some practical problems to solve but a draw should be unavoidable with correct play.) } 17...Bxe6 18.Qxe6 Qe8 $11 { [%eval 14,29] } 19.Qe2 Rc8 20.Qxe8+ ( 20.Rd1 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 Rf5+ 22.Ke1 Qxe2+ 23.Kxe2 Rxc2+ 24.Rd2 Rf2+ 25.Kxf2 Rxd2+ $11 { [%eval -8,37] } ) ( 20.g4 Qxe2+ 21.Kxe2 Rh4 22.Kd3 Rxg4 23.Be5 Rgc4 24.c3 Bd8 25.Rhg1 Bf6 $11 { [%eval -12,28] } ) 20...Rxe8+ 21.Kd2 ( 21.Kd1 Bxf2 22.Kd2 ( 22.g4 Rh3 23.Rf1 Rxh2 24.Bd4 Re1+ 25.Rxe1 Bxd4 26.Rf1+ Ke7 27.Rb1 $11 { [%eval 0,40] } ) 22...Kf7 23.Rhf1 Rf5 24.Rad1 Re4 25.Kc1 g5 26.Rd2 Ref4 27.g3 $11 { [%eval 0,33] } ) ( 21.Kf1 Rf5 22.f3 Rf7 23.a4 Rc7 24.c3 Be3 25.Bc1 Rxc3 26.Bxe3 Rexe3 27.Kf2 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) 21...Bxf2 22.Rad1 ( 22.Rhf1 Rf5 23.Rad1 Re4 24.Kc1 Be3+ 25.Kb1 d4 26.Rde1 Kf7 27.Rh1 $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) 22...Rf5 23.Kc1 ( 23.Rhf1 Re4 24.Kc1 Be3+ 25.Kb1 d4 26.g3 Ke7 27.Rfe1 Kd6 28.Bc1 Ke5 $11 { [%eval 0,34] } ) ( 23.Kc3 Bh4 24.Kb3 Re2 25.g3 Bf6 26.Rd3 Ke7 27.h4 Re4 28.Bxf6+ gxf6 $11 { [%eval 0,34] } ) ( 23.g3 Kf7 24.Kc1 Re2 25.Kb1 Bb6 26.Rd3 Rff2 27.Rc1 Ke6 28.h4 Be3 $11 { [%eval 0,34] } ) 23...Re2 24.g4 Be3+ 25.Kb1 Rff2 26.Rhf1 Rxc2 27.Rxf2+ Rxf2 28.Rxd5 Rxh2 $11 { [%eval 2,31] } ) 17...Qc7 18.O-O-O ( 18.Qxc7 Bxc7 19.O-O-O a5 20.bxa5 Bxa5 21.f4 Bc7 22.g3 g5 23.fxg5 Rxg5 $11 { [%eval 0,30] } ) ( 18.f4 e5 19.fxe5 Qxe5+ 20.Qxe5 Rxe5+ 21.Kd2 Re4 22.Rhf1+ Kg8 23.Rae1 a5 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) 18...e5 19.Qf3+ ( 19.Nb3 Qf7 ( 19...d4 20.Rhe1 ( 20.Rd2 Be6 21.f4 exf4 22.Qxg6 Rh6 23.Qd3 Bc4 24.Qf5+ Rf6 25.Qh3 $11 { [%eval 0,37] } ) 20...Bd7 21.Rd2 Kf7 22.Nc5 Bxc5 23.bxc5 Rc8 24.f4 exf4 25.Qb3+ $11 { [%eval 27,30] } ) ( 19...Bf5 20.Rd2 ( 20.Nc5 d4 21.Rhe1 Bxc5 22.bxc5 Qxc5 23.Rd2 Re8 24.h3 Bd7 25.f4 $11 { [%eval -6,31] } ) 20...Re8 21.h3 d4 22.Re1 Re7 23.Nc5 Bxc5 24.bxc5 Kg8 25.c6 $11 { [%eval 12,26] } ) 20.Bxe5 ( 20.Rhf1 Bc7 21.Rde1 d4 22.f4 exf4 23.Qf3 d3 24.Qxd3 Be6 25.Qc3 $11 { [%eval 0,27] } ) 20...Bxf2 21.Qc3 Bg4 22.Rd2 Rc8 23.Nc5 b6 24.h3 Bxc5 25.bxc5 $11 { [%eval 0,30] } ) ( 19.Nf3 Bf5 20.Rd2 ( 20.Ne1 d4 21.Rd2 Rc8 22.Nd3 e4 23.Nc5 Qxg3 24.fxg3 d3 25.Bd4 $11 { [%eval -27,29] } ) 20...e4 21.Nd4 Qxg3 22.fxg3 Kg8 23.h3 Bd7 24.Re1 a5 25.g4 $11 { [%eval 0,29] } ) 19...Qf7 20.Qxf7+ ( 20.Nb5 Qxf3 21.gxf3 Bd7 22.Nd6 Bxf2 23.Rxd5 Bg3 24.Nxb7 Bc6 25.Rd8+ $15 { [%eval -35,27] } ) 20...Kxf7 21.Nf3 ( 21.Ne2 d4 22.Ng3 ( 22.h3 Bd7 23.f4 Rc8 24.fxe5 Ba4 25.e6+ Ke7 26.Nxd4 Bxd4 27.Bxd4 $11 { [%eval -12,30] } ) 22...Rh4 23.Rhe1 Rxh2 24.Rxe5 Rxg2 25.Rde1 Bg4 26.R5e4 Bf5 27.Nxf5 $11 { [%eval 0, 30] } ) ( 21.Nb5 a6 ( 21...Bd7 22.Nd6+ ( 22.Rxd5 Bc6 23.Nd6+ Ke6 24.Rd2 Rf8 25.Nc4 Rxf2 26.Rd6+ Ke7 27.Re1 $11 { [%eval -8,29] } ) 22...Ke6 23.Nxb7 Bxf2 24.Nc5+ Bxc5 25.bxc5 g5 26.g4 Rh3 27.Rde1 $11 { [%eval 7,29] } ) ( 21...d4 22.Rhe1 ( 22.f4 Bg4 23.Rdf1 Kg8 24.Nd6 Be6 25.fxe5 a5 26.Re1 axb4 27.axb4 $11 { [%eval 0,31] } ) 22...Kg8 23.h3 Bd7 24.Nd6 Bc7 25.Ne4 Ba4 26.Rd2 Rc8 27.Kb1 $11 { [%eval 14,27] } ) 22.Nc3 ( 22.Nd6+ Ke6 23.Ne8 Kf7 24.Nd6+ Ke6 25.Ne8 Kf7 26.Nd6+ Ke6 27.Ne8 $11 { [%eval 0,36] } ) 22...d4 23.Ne4 Bf5 24.Rde1 Rh4 25.Nd6+ Ke6 26.Nc4 Bc7 27.g3 $11 { [%eval 0,33] } ) 21...e4 22.Ne5+ ( 22.Nd4 Bd7 23.h3 Rc8 24.Kb1 Ba4 25.Rd2 a5 26.f3 axb4 27.axb4 $15 { [%eval -34,29] } ) 22...Kg8 23.Rxd5 ( 23.g4 Rh3 24.Rxd5 ( 24.Rhf1 g5 25.Rxd5 Be6 26.Rdd1 Rxh2 27.Bd4 Rg2 28.Bxb6 axb6 29.Rd6 $11 { [%eval 0,35] } ) 24...Be6 25.Rd6 Re8 26.Re1 e3 27.fxe3 Bxe3+ 28.Kb1 Bf4 29.Rd3 $11 { [%eval 0,34] } ) ( 23.Nxg6 Bxf2 24.Bd4 ( 24.Ne7+ Kh7 25.Bd4 Bh4 26.Nxc8 Rxc8 27.Bxa7 Ra8 28.Bc5 Bf6 29.Bd4 $11 { [%eval -22,31] } ) 24...e3 25.Rd3 Kh7 26.Ne7 Be6 27.Bxe3 Bh4 28.g4 Bxg4 29.Nxd5 $11 { [%eval 0,36] } ) 23...Be6 $11 { [%eval 0,30] } 24.Rd6 ( 24.Rd2 e3 25.Rd6 Re8 26.g4 Rxe5 27.Bxe5 exf2 28.Rxe6 Rxe6 29.Bg3 $11 { [%eval 0,32] } ) 24...Re8 25.g4 $11 { [%eval 6,29] } 25...Rh3 26.Re1 e3 27.fxe3 $11 { [%eval 19,30] } 27...Bxe3+ 28.Kb1 Bf4 29.Rd3 $11 { [%eval 12,32] } *
So now we finally know who creates new trends and how we can easily detect them. The next question is how interesting this is for the amateur. Well this isn't an easy question as I am not acquainted with the content of the magazines. I guess averagely once per year something could be useful for my standard games. That is not much but also largely depends on my own choices. I almost don't vary my repertoire as I use the scientific approach to choose openings. Also I play few games : I wrote 38 with a standard timecontrol last year in my article surprises part 2.

Briefly almost 100 euro per year for a magazine is a lot of money for me. For professionals the situation is very different. Last the Amercian grandmaster Alexander Lenderman grumbled with the famous Russian proverb "скупой платит дважды" after his painful defeat in 22 moves a week ago against the Amercian top-grandmaster Fabiano Caruana. The opening was treated in the most recent edition of newinchess yearbook 126 (this magazine is released only 4 times per year contrary to the monthly editions of chesspublishing and bi-monthly editions of chessbase) but Alexander missed it while Fabiano didn't.
[Event "US Championship"] [Site "St Louis, MO USA"] [Date "2018.04.19"] [Round "2"] [White "Fabiano Caruana"] [Black "Aleksandr Lenderman"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C18"] [WhiteElo "2804"] [BlackElo "2599"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "2018.04.18"] [CurrentPosition "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qa5 7.Bd2 Qa4 8.Qg4 Kf8 9.h4 { (The idea which Fabiano had read a couple of days earlier in the most recent magazine of New in Chess, yearbook 126.) } 9...Nc6 10.h5 h6 11.Qd1 cxd4 12.Nf3 dxc3 13.Bxc3 g5 14.hxg6 Qe4+ 15.Be2 Qxg6 16.Qd2 Nge7 17.Bd3 Qxg2 18.Ke2 Qg4 19.Rh4 Qg7 20.Rg1 Ng6 21.Rf4 Nce7 22.Bb4 a5 23.Rxg6 1-0
My Russian father-in-law uses the proverb also regularly. A cheap person pays twice. Losing an extra half point in the US-championship can very well cost many times more than 100 euro see US-prizemoney and I don't consider yet other interests like qualification for the olympiad, the title,...

Let us go back to the mortals and it is doubtful to follow fashion in chess. There will always be players (mainly youngsters) being booked up by the latest novelties. So you do risk sometimes to play against a fashionista but don't panic as openings very rarely decide a game between amateurs.


1 comment: