Single Comment

Okay, I don't play FIDE chess, so let's discuss this thing about opening
theory. As I understand it, opening theory is when you memorize a whole
bunch of opening positions, and the best continuations from each one. I
have [and always have had] a terrible memory which explains in good part
why I don't play FIDE. But since I don't [always] play completely
randomly, I must have some guide. That guide is opening principles, and
basic military ideas. 

One of the things I've seen written about Fischer Random Chess is that
after several turns, you can't tell it's Fischer Random. This would seem
to imply there is some leveling effect. It says that people can get to a
standard sort of midgame and an absolutely typical endgame no matter what
they start out with in FRC. How, and why? Because everyone uses the same
general principles of mobility, economy of action, taking of space,
building of defenses and attacks, and all are familiar with the standard 5
chesspieces and the pawn. Opening theory is fine if one wishes to
specialize in one game and beat everyone at that game. Opening principles
and familiarity with many different [types of] pieces are what allow
players to successfully play a wide range of games. 

I'd rather see a discussion of general opening principles and the effects
of different sorts of pieces on a game than a study of one or a few games'
many possible opening moves. I'm not opposed to that sort of study, and
could see it as a benefit, if it did a range of games, comparing and
contrasting them.