Sharing your repertoire, good or bad?

I agree with both of you, AdvLegitimate and namero...but I precieve you are not understanding each other very well.   

Eventually, all openings TRANSITION into similar structures.  

That was my point in the forum post on "What is the Common Denominator?"

From an artificial intelligence (computer) approach, take all possible checkmates and retrograde anaylize them to the middle game and the openings.

How smart am I?

I appreciate the sentiment. Your point has some merit. As for how smart you are, I find I am difficult to impress in that regard. I still think both of you are missing something but, I will take the blame for not being able to verbalize it well enough to get my point across. I will try again.

I have noticed when I ask my Chessmaster engine to play itself with particular openings, there is a varying degree to how close or onesided the results are. I realize people can't play a line that is tedious, seemingly making useless moves, as computer, who sees 30 moves ahead can. However, I still take note that it appears that the KIA seems better than King's pawn game for white. Everytime I say this I get hate mail. I don't care, it is obvious that some lines are stronger than others and give you a better chance to win.If I wasn't right, then their would be no refuted opening lines and most likely we would see more draws. I feel like other players say this without saying it by putting down people who play gambits and crazy oddities, because the can't calculate and are tactically weak.

Thank you.

I don't use computers.

Peace and love and happiness and joyful enjoyment!  

Do you use your phone to play here?..... I'm a schmuck... and I'm audi...

Here is a question for grandmaster and patzer (like me):  What is the perfect game of chess?   1. e4 2.c5?  What is it?   What is the best move every time?   Please educate me.

It depends. It generally depends on the move or moves that proceeded it. Part of the argument against some openings, being stronger than others from a the first move is simply, with so many variables and the human element, its practically a mute point to try to know.

You can't say there is a perfect game since chess has potentially more moves than atoms in the universe and the universe is far from perfect =)

Very interesting...and than you, gentlemen, for your comments...however, just as the game CHECKERS is now dead because a computer can win every time and tournaments are decided by lots, so too could be chess.   There are a FINITE number of checkmates.  There are a finite number of end game positions.  There are a finite number of middle game positions.  There are a finite number of openings.  That's it...dead in the water...bullet in the heart...game over.

The brain power required for a human to take advantage of those facts is so great that, chess is alive and well and will be for along time.

..speak for yourself.

I will speak for myself, as well as, speak for the rest of us who have a good grasp of chess in the general sense, beyond simply playing it. If someone had that ability, we would all marvel at how well he/she thumped Carlsen and Anand regularly, as well as, they never lost...take a mental note before you think it isn't possible to deduce such information...

Stop arguing. He is a 1300 player. He is an unrivaled genius who truly understands chess and KNOWS that it's dead.

Really I wasn't going to argue if he insisted, I was simply attempting to get him to rethink his assertion...I was done after that...I wouldn't want my wall to get get jealous and lonely.

...hit a nerve, did I?   

Hey guys, I am not trying to kill chess...all I am saying is exactly what I said:  FINITE.

Chess is not this mystical, unfathomable phenomenom like gravity or string-theory physics...it is a GAME.  

An aquaintance of mine started playing this anti-theoretical  opening 1. b4 and toured the country winning 100% in simultanious matches sometimes.  Why?  Is it because 1.  b4 is the best move?  Of course not.  He won because he was a GRAND MASTER.

Post script:

Chess will never die...it will always be popular in movies and coffee shops...However, it is like the story of 
"John Henry and the Steam Hammer."  

John Henry was a steel driving man...he was a strong black man who could pick up a colt with one hand...then along came the Steam Hammer and took John Henry down.

This is the future of chess and computer analysis. 

Who is this aquaintance?
When was the simul?
Where was it?
What was the level of the players?

I can hold a 100 man simul and win every single one if the players are at your level. Chess isnt dead because of that, is it?

I'm the best there is because my king is 4" tall.  Everyone else's is 3 3/4.  makes about as much sense as this thread. Give it up and just play people.

Just a guy I met named Pal Benko.

Ok, so is the powerball lottery, lets see you win it...chess has far more variables than that. Don't give yourself so much credit, my cage is harder to rattle than you think.

The last part of your statement gives relevance to the statement I made in an earlier post about it not mattering if computers are able to solve chess, even the best grandmasters can't remember all of the variations.