I read somewhere that one of the secrets to Korchnoi's longetivity at the top was his constant desire to learn something new. He was always evolving, trying new things and changing.
I have always been curious about chess. I always wanted to learn something new, to see for myself how things are done. This didn't only affect the openings, though it was mostly seen in the openings. For example, I started with Fischer's repertoire, but that included several openings against 1.d4, like the KID, Grunfeld, Nimzo, Ragozin, Semi-Tarrasch, the QGD. It was similar with 1.e4 - obviously the Najdorf as the main opening, but also the Alekhine Defence, the Cordell in the Ruy Lopez, even the Pirc. Slowly but surely I was studying these openings, learning how they should be played and expanding my horizons.
With White, after many years of playing 1.e4 and occasionally 1.c4, after failing to become a GM in 2008 I decided I needed to expand my repertoire and set out to study 1.d4. I remember I hated facing the KID with all its tricks and annoying counterplay, so I spent a lot of time and effort checking and playing a lot of different lines (the Fianchetto, the Gligoric System, the Four Pawns) before I conquered that hatred and turned it into joy as at one point I won 10 (!) games in a row against the KID using the Makagonov System.
This curiosity expanded to the middlegames and endgames, which connected to the openings led to study of more new openings. In 2000 Kramnik unleashed the Berlin and I was curious to see and understand how that endgame should be played. It wasn't really on my repertoire, so I could have safely ignored it, but I was drawn to it simply because I was curious to experience it myself, how Kramnik might have felt playing those positions.
This need to feel and experience for myself different types of positions and situations has been a driving force behind my studies. I always felt I was moving forward after learning something new, even if I never played that variation or opening. For me the process of learning new things is exciting and while at times challenging, like in the example of the KID mentioned above, it inevitably leads to an inner feeling that I have become a better player afterwards.
This continues nowadays. In spite of practically being inactive, I still want to learn new things. For quite some time the Giuoco Piano has been very confusing to me, with its move-orders and various plans. I follow what the best players are playing, but this instance is one where serious study is required to really understand what’s going on (something similar to my study of the Makagonov). I haven’t had the time for that type of study, which means I am still puzzled by the Giuoco Piano, though when I imagine what I would play against it, I always come up with some ideas, even though I may not have the chance to test them out.
My feeling is that it’s good to be curious in chess. It may be dangerous sometimes, but, as the saying goes, curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought her back.
P.S. This week’s video is about being curious whether your opponent has a good memory. I noticed that Hikaru Nakamura often uses the following strategy: he doesn’t mind a draw with the white pieces, so he enters drawing variations. Then there are two possibilities: one - the opponent knows the variation and the game ends in a draw; two - the opponent doesn’t know the variation and makes a mistake, resulting in winning chances for Nakamura. The video explores two very important games that he won following this strategy: against Caruana at the Grand Swiss in 2023 and against Gukesh at this year’s Norway Chess.