English Chess Forum

It does some what surprise me that people often think they have found an opening novelty I mean it's incredible really because even amongst the Top players they find it extremely hard to find novelties, it tends to be just improvements in certain positions.

However I noticed someone which I know by association has proclaimed to have found an opening idea, which has actually been played three times, I did research and it's been played in:

Giessen open Round (3) 1997- Klucken Tim- vs Hendler Markus

Schmidt Thomas 1671 vs Lamberger Werner 1912 Event Bad Woerishofen Open round (5) 2001

Fier, Alexander Hilario T 2365 vs Sousa Armindo 2216 Event Calvia Men open (3) 17.10.2004

This was the Youtube link The alleged person proclaimed to find a opening novelty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arKH3bnDSns

In the Pirc with 8. h3.

Matt

There was one at the London Chess Classic the other day. I have absolutely no idea what the name of the opening was, but it was in the game Nakamura-Short. Short said he saw it in the FIDE Open, and saw white play 11. g3. He didn't think it was very good. Then lo and behold, Nakamura played the same move against him! The opening books had nothing really devoted to it. So the white player in the FIDE Open who played 11. g3 should probably have that variation named after him.

matt_ward wrote:It does some what surprise me that people often think they have found an opening novelty I mean it's incredible really because even amongst the Top players they find it extremely hard to find novelties, it tends to be just improvements in certain positions.

What is a novelty if it isn't "an improvement in a certain position"???

That said, it's somewhat surprising to see 8.h3 described as a novelty. I was under the perhaps mistaken impression that it was a fundamental point of the whole variation!

Alex Holowczak wrote:There was one at the London Chess Classic the other day. I have absolutely no idea what the name of the opening was, but it was in the game Nakamura-Short. Short said he saw it in the FIDE Open, and saw white play 11. g3. He didn't think it was very good. Then lo and behold, Nakamura played the same move against him! The opening books had nothing really devoted to it. So the white player in the FIDE Open who played 11. g3 should probably have that variation named after him.

If the first person to play it gets it named after them, then it should be the Walbrodt variation and the right of others to claim a novelty was lost in 1893 (according to my database).

Problem solved, The youtube link which I put in my previous post I think demonstrated that black was not prepared and most certainly didn't know the opening and probably does not play the pirc usually.

However Nigel's and Nakamura's was similar in the sense Nakamura didn not expect Nigel's opening choice but probably worked out the correct ideas because he is amongst the best in the world.

Matt.

Richard Bates wrote:What is a novelty if it isn't "an improvement in a certain position"???

Yep. And it need not even be an improvement: it can just be novel. One "novelty" I inadvertently produced was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5. a3 Bxc3 6. Qxc3 Ne4 7. Qc2 f5 and now I carelessly moved 8.f3? There followed, of course, 8. ... Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10. hxg3 Qxh1. I could now resign with a clear conscience but it seemed that white had a bit of a development advantage -- not enough to compensate for his material loss, but enough to play on a bit. I went on to win the game. I've played it a few times in blitz games and done well with it. It's a "novelty" -- though an unsound one. I have another "novelty" in the Sveshnikov, where I sacrifice a knight for a couple of pawns (as black): completely unsound but the shock value produces points in blitz chess.

Many of Tal's moves were unsound novelties -- but the shock of encountering them and having to deal with the ensuing complications with the clock ticking away were often enough for his opponents to blunder the game away.

I was delighted to be introduced to something new by a 6 year old strong player at the LCC. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nxe5. He told me this was the Halloween Gambit. I pointed out that it could only be successful on 31 October, which he understood perfectly. I have since learned that it is a known line. He passed the COM Level 3 with a little prodding. If he retains his interest in chess, he will be a GM in due course.

I tried 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 d6 4 cxd4 f5 on a whim against Natasha Regan. I expect this was a novelty, never to be repeated.
I played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Qe2 a few times. It was pointed out to me that this had been tried in the 19th century. But Nigel effectively played it in the LCC. 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Qe2.

Stewart Reuben

Janez Barle played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5!? against me in round 8. I don't know if this is a novelty or not.

There was a chapter on that in Graham Burgess's book : 101 Chess Opening Surprises. I've definitely seen it played before!

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Janez Barle played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5!? against me in round 8. I don't know if this is a novelty or not.

I have 566 games in that line.
First played 1923.
Highest rated player V Spasov
Played most by Szabolcsi 18 times

Stewart Reuben wrote:....introduced to something new by a 6 year old strong player at the LCC. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nxe5

I have 3309 games in that line.
First played 1890.
Highest rated player G Sergeev
Played most by Internet player Brause 3008 times

Stewart Reuben wrote:I tried 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 d6 4 cxd4 f5 on a whim against Natasha Regan. I expect this was a novelty, never to be repeated.

I have 2 games in that line.
First played 1999.
Highest rated player Artizzu

Stewart Reuben wrote: I played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Qe2 a few times.

I have 383 games in that line.
First played 1886
Highest rated player prior to Short, K Movsziszian
Played most by R Mantovani 13 times

Warlik-Blanco Moscow 1994 produced a novel concept in the Tromp: 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 Ne4 3 f3 Ng5 4 h4 Ne6 5 d5 Nc5 6 b4 Na6 7 a3. The white player couldn't even use touch move as an excuse for his move 3 blunder as the ugly f4 was available Clearly black was unconcerned about moving his knight six times in the first six moves

Tsaboshvili-Williams from round 9 at Bunratty 2009: 1 d4 h6 2 Nf3 g5 3 e4 a6 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 h5 6 Bc4 e6 7 Nc3 b5 8 Bb3 d6 9 Nd3 c5 winning a piece may not catch on either

My new opening novelty after 1. F4 E6 is G4!

Gavin Strachan wrote:My new opening novelty after 1. F4 E6 is G4!

Gavin,

Philidor would have liked this idea but Grob would have frowned on it. I feel it gives Black too much counter-play at an early stage.

I'd suggest a quieter approach : 1. f3 e6 2. g3 e5 3. g4!? waiting for Black to over reach in this double edged position maybe?

Gavin Strachan wrote:My new opening novelty after 1. F4 E6 is G4!

It looks promising. I'm feverishly searching for how black can counter this: maybe just quiet development, refusing to be provoked?