Grunfeld Defense

I've noticed a recent rash of books published, pushing this opening as if it were a new one. 

 What surprises me with some chess authors is their lack of imagination or the inferred assumption that the average chess player is an idiot.  I'm willing to admit that we don't know every variation by name or move or derivatives thereof.  

 However we have played so many games we recognise patterns and learn from previous wins or defeats.  I have played the Grunfeld many times and it is only of any use against an opponent who is not familiar with opening book or which opening is best suited to deal with another. 

 The Grunfeld (and my favourite variation) has been played at World Championship level by 2 of of the chess world's giants.  Karpov played against Kasparov's King's Indian and won by move 9 (after-match analysis) because Kasparov overlooked the order of the moves.  Had Kasparov castled before move 10 he could have drawn at best.  Instead he resigned in absolute disgust because he stood to lose all the capital pieces protecting his king - however the exchange began.

 I'm not going to reveal my secrets but variations on a theme (opening) are what wins matches and not necessarily the basic openings.  All it takes is a little homework and playing a game out move by move on a board to see how or why a game was won/lost/drawn.

 I prefer to read chess books written by Grandmasters rather than hacks or mathematicians.  most of the interesting variations are all derivatives of basic openings such as the king's bishop's pawn or kings gambit or queens gambit.  the golden oldies are often the best too as few people know them by rote though they have probably played them at some time or another.

 I know I may appear tohave strong views on the matter - and doubtless others will disagree - but I play for the game and its battle of wits and not for the win.  Losing a game is instructive and gives you opportunity to learn.  A draw is far better than a loss but harder to achieve.

 I don't plagiarise the genius of others I just observe, digest and then vary it yet further to make another variation of a standard opening.  It's truly sad that theses openings only get the attention they deserve when played at the highest levels.

 Anatolymolotov.

Sorry Erik, use your own noodle.  Why would I submit my best lines for scrutiny?  That would be like two rival scientists sharing information on the same thing lol.

 My point is that you use your imagination to create new variations on strategy over time as you learn which sequences of moves look like a distinct pattern and that tips off your opponent.

It's hilarious how a player not even rated a thousand either thinks he has some big time novelty, which I'm 100% sure is a total bust, or thinks that some main line that he looked up is a line that others have no clue about, despite it having been played zillions of times.

I absolutely despise the Grunfeld.  I hate playing it!  I hate playing against it!  It is one of the openings I understand the least about!  And yet, if someone put me and anatolymolotov in isolation in a Room with a Chess Board and no books or computers, and made us play a 10-game match where every game had to start 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5, I would completely destroy him, 10 - ZIP!