Is Opening Theory Really More Widespread Than Ever?

THE general consensus among players I speak to is that opening knowledge is much more prolific than it used to be.

Much of the credit for this is normally given to computers in general and to databases in particular.

It is also undoubtedly true that there are many more opening books published every year than was the case even as recently as the 1990s.

And while I agree opening knowledge has grown, I think it is also often the case that opponents are believed to know more than they do.

I cannot give any real hard-and-fast evidence for this, but my round-one game at Altea provides a little anecdotal support.

In that game I played the King's Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.f4.

This was the fourth time I have played the opening with white, and every time my opponent has replied 2...d6.

Now I realise ...d6 is playable, even if engines such as Stockfiah16 and Komodo14.1 do not much like it.

Indeed there are 4,171 examples of the move in ChessBase's 2023 Mega database, although Black scores a poor 29%.

My opponent at Altea was rated 1148, and the other three King's-Gambit opponents were 1386, 1083 and 1849, so only one had what might be called a decent club-strength rating.

Nevertheless I think my experience of playing the King's Gambit with white does suggest basic opening knowledge is not as widespread as many of us sometimes think.