Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
randalolson.com
Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
1–10 of 43 posts
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#2Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's all the rage. Everyone is playing it, working out the complications, finding ways to defend or neutralize the lines, then interest wanes until someone uncovers a fresh new plan somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Other times though, new resources aren't found and a line mostly dies out, like the Kings Gambit.
So what I would be interested to see from your data set is a relation between opening performance and its popularity. Did people stop playing the Pirc due to sub-par results compared to other openings at the time (like I imagine happened with the Vienna) or did it simply fall out of fashion? It would be interesting to know which lines always had good results, but just stopped being popular for whatever reason. They could be due for a revival.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#3I'm under the impression that introducing the Queen too early (say I don't know how much this is actually true though. That would also be a good thing to look over
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#4I'm under the impression that introducing the Queen too early (say I don't know how much this is actually true though. That would also be a good thing to look over
Indeed, one possible consequence of developing the queen early is that it can be harried with tempo by the opponent; that is, he gets to make you respond while making developing moves he wanted to make anyway.
However, except in cases of gross incompetence it doesn't lead to your queen being taken, it's just suboptimal. There are also plenty of exceptions to this rule, of course. The most obvious one is the main line of the Scandinavian Defense, 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5. This isn't a grade-A opening but it's a solid B+ and occasionally gets used at the highest levels.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#5The Pirc spike in the 1850s looks interesting visually, but keep in mind that your data set back then is incredibly small. Looking at my own database, the spike seems to be entirely due to some guy name Mahescandra playing it 57 times against Cochrane. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the increasing popularity of 1.d4 40 years later.
I've never heard of Mahescandra, but Cochrane is the guy the famous Cochrane gambit in the Petroff is named after, where White sacrifices a piece on move 4 (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7).
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#6Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's all the rage. Everyone is playing it, working out the complications, finding ways to defend or neutralize the lines, then interest wanes until someone uncovers a fresh new plan somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Other times though, new resources aren't foun…
Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious from the data which of your interpretations is correct. Take the following two fictional cases:
Case 1: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then grandmasters started playing the Limburger Gambit Deferred instead, so it fell out of fashion, although it is still a perfectly good opening.
Case 2: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then a response was found that refuted the whole line. It was played in one famous game, after which everybody abandoned it.
As far as the data set is concerned, the difference between these two cases is a single game, so it's not going to show up in the stats.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#7Great blog post. It's interesting to compare my knowledge of opening evolution with the historic data. During the Romantic Era, King Pawn games were clearly the norm. When Reti and Nimzowitch introduced hypermodernism in the 1920s Indian openings became much more popular.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#8Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's all the rage. Everyone is playing it, working out the complications, finding ways to defend or neutralize the lines, then interest wanes until someone uncovers a fresh new plan somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Other times though, new resources aren't foun…
Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious from the data which of your interpretations is correct. Take the following two fictional cases: Case 1: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then grandmasters started playing the Limburger Gambit Deferred instead, so it fell out of fashion, although it is still a perfectly good opening. Case 2: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then a res…
This is true, but I think there are many more case 2s where rather than an entire line being refuted in a single blow, gradually one side was able to find antidotes and the line stopped being a good practical choice. The Vienna is an example. So while it isn't always obvious, I'm hoping enough fall between your two Limburgers to be interesting.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#9The Pirc spike in the 1850s looks interesting visually, but keep in mind that your data set back then is incredibly small. Looking at my own database, the spike seems to be entirely due to some guy name Mahescandra playing it 57 times against Cochrane. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the increasing popularity of 1.d4 40 years later. I've never heard of Mahescandra, but Cochrane is the guy the famous Coc…
I double-checked my data set to look into this, and you're right. Nearly all of the Pircs in that time period were done by a guy named Moheschunder Bannerjee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee
He contributed to the development of the Indian Defence.
Re: Evolution of chess: Popularity of openings over time
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, it isn't always obvious from the data which of your interpretations is correct. Take the following two fictional cases: Case 1: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then grandmasters started playing the Limburger Gambit Deferred instead, so it fell out of fashion, although it is still a perfectly good opening. Case 2: The Limburger Gambit was popular for a few decades, but then a res…
This is true, but I think there are many more case 2s where rather than an entire line being refuted in a single blow, gradually one side was able to find antidotes and the line stopped being a good practical choice. The Vienna is an example. So while it isn't always obvious, I'm hoping enough fall between your two Limburgers to be interesting.
The two biggest examples I can think of of "opening fell out of fashion but then was brought back at the highest levels" are Kasparov reviving the Scotch in the 1990s and Kramnik reviving the Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez in his world title match with Kasparov in 2000.