Why Don't We See More Variance in High Level Chess?

So, with Fabiano Caruana playing Magnus Carlsen for the championship, which is right around the corner, I would like to ask a question, which I hope experienced chess players will answer...

Why are some openings, which are not all too common but nonetheless playable not played that often?

Why don't we see The Modern Benoni, Alapin Opening, Alekhine, or the Italian Game (etc)? Or why don't we see the Keres Variation of the Sicilian? Why don't these high players try to expand a horizon a bit? I understand, I don't expect the King's Gambit, not that I am a huge fan (though I must admit a certain liking of the Romantic era). 

So, I am waiting for your thoughts.

Thanks

But Modern Benoni is very much playable. 

Let me answer your question this way.

Why dont you play the Colle?

Bit too complicated... But the openings I listed are PERFECTLY playable and have been played before.

?

The Colle is easy compared to the ones you listed.  

GM's play the openings they play, beause they have played them for years.  Years of study, etc.  

You think 1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 is perfectly playable at the GM level?

Different Openings tend to come into style or go out of style at different times.  We tend to play the openings the current international- and grand- masters play because they're the ones who write the books and give the lectures. They, in turn, may be attracted to novel strategies in certain defenses or openings and flock to them.

In the 1990's, the Bishop's Opening had been out of favor for 60 years, but it avoids some of the insane defenses that the Vienna Game sometimes gets into and even beginning players can see a middlegame plan in it: play f4 early, try to castle long, then Pawn Storm Black's K-side castled King.

I coached a high school team in the 1990's to three consecutive county championships in my state's most competitive chess county, taking home the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place team trophies in the State Scholastic Championships.  The Bishop's Opening gave us a big edge because no one else knew it: there were few books and opponent's often mistook it as an attempt at a Scholar's Mate and didn't realize they were getting hit with a real openings.

Then Garry Kasparov played the Bishop's Opening in a World Championship Match game, a bunch of books about it appeared, and the Bishop's Opening was no longer such a secret weapon.

All openings are (pretty much) analyzed to equality, so getting an advantage as white isn't the goal anymore. As white they want a game with winning chances... usually something strategically complex, not symmetrical, that sort of thing.

But losing as white, especially in a match, is a disaster, so they don't get too crazy.

As black, they want a draw. So Berlins and Kramnik semi-slav BS that trades all the pieces off the board are more likely to be seen than a fighting Sicilian.

And just in general, possibly because everyone has the same engines to prepare with... people want to avoid "my prep vs your prep" battles, at least for lines that can cause you to instantly lose if you slip up. Instead they aim for a strategically complex game where the players have to navigate on their own, and forgetting 1 move of theory isn't instant disaster.

And perhaps the world champion sets the style.

When Kasparov was king, it was Sicilians.

These days we have e.g. Caruana in the Candidates trying Qb3 Catalans to... win? Probably just to keep a lot of pieces on and hope something happens.

Yeah, all top players can play pretty much anything. It's really amazing.

But their main openings are the really boring stuff... at least AFAIK. I don't follow everyone.

Most likely they find those openings too dangerous to play and don't want to take the risk. Until they can come up with a novelty in those openings to surprise their opponents they'll stick with what's comfortable.

When was the last time any of you saw the Modern Benoni... or Alapin in WC? What is wrong with these?

In such an important match, it's more common to see players aim to steer the game down very controlled, predictable paths—openings where the risk is relatively low and the advantage is concrete and steady.

I don't know much about the Alapin, but the Modern Benoni is sharp and can become quite wild, so it's bit of a double-edged blade to go into.

That said, both Caruana and Carlsen know the Benoni structure quite well, so don't be surprised if a game or two of the defense does sneak its way into the upcoming match.

Top players have a more limited opening repertoire, because when you are playing another very strong player, you don't want to give them any more opportunities than necessary. Sure, you would be hard pressed to conclusively prove that e.g. the Caro-Kann is +=, but in the Advance Variation (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5) Black has a long-term space disadvantage, so Black will have to be somewhat more precise to maintain equality, compared to say, the Berlin. 

Before a top 10 GM ever uses an opening or a novelty or surprise variation in a serious tournament game with serious prizes, they will often play a number of practice games with a "Second" if the practice games go horribly then they will have no reason to risk it with so much on the line.

The ben oni is a good but risky opening. These guys play chess professionally so they can't take too many risks.

Here is an interview with Kramnik where he says that he can't take to much risks as black and therefore plays the berlin defense although he prefers to play a full game.