Originally Posted by
Vladimir Drkulec
I did not see this conversation as anything remotely approaching something that administrators might intervene in. As an occasional Caro-Kann player (something like seven games with five wins and two draws as black if my memory serves) I found it very interesting. When I played 1.e4 the Panov attack was my preferred way of dealing with the Caro-Kann. At the time my play was full of gambits and it seemed a bargain to play white and get all that play without even giving up a pawn. The state of theory and research was much simpler in the 1970s.
Even though my record with the Caro-Kann would suggest that I should continue to play it, I put it on the shelf for a while pending actually learning some theory. I do occasionally still play it in online blitz with reasonable results. I was miserably lost in almost every one of those tournament games, even the ones I won mainly because my entire foray into understanding the opening was about one hour of training. I even played it against a life time Caro-Kann player in hopes of learning the line he feared most. It seemed a very realistic fear based on the game we played though he lost his way in the complications and I eventually won from a lost position.
I have a much better theoretical knowledge of 1.e4 e5 or 1.e4 c5 or even the Scandinavian or French defense as openings that I have played and studied more extensively.