Committee of Chess Opening Experts (CCOE)

Hello and welcome to Viznik Labs!

While this club is all about creativity, exploration, curiosity, and most of all having fun, we are truly on a path of chess excellence. Our goal here is to develop and create new chess openings, with unique twists or creative designs, that can be applied to the real world of chess.

Because of the sometime complex and delicate nature of chess theory, it must be that a committee is formed of high level, expert chess players who can oversee proposed chess openings to our Published Opening sections.

Applications for a position on the committee are now opened. While there are no “set” qualifications for who can sit on the committee, it must be noted I will not only pick members I believe and foresee as providing excellence to the committee and ability to analyze proposed chess openings, but will also confer with experts outside of this club to verify an applicants chess ability and knowledge.

Members of the Committee of Chess Opening Experts (CCOE) will serve a crucial and important role to Viznik Labs. They will act as the “Supreme Court Justices” - if you will - of our labs Published Opening’s section, and will have the ultimate say on whether or not an opening can be published to our exclusive Published section. After passing our Peer Review board, the CCOE will overview notes from the Peer Review and make a final decision on publication.

To submit an application for a seat on the CCOE, simply reply to this forum answering the following questions:

1.) What are your daily and rapid ratings?

2.) What is your official OTB rating? (If none, explain why.)

3.) Would you enjoy overseeing proposed openings to be published to Viznik Labs, and are you prepared to seriously analyze and compute proposed openings that make it past peer review?

4.) What makes a good opening, in your opinion?

5.) What is the difference between an opening that should be published, and one that shouldn’t be?

6.) Any other information you would like to share in your application 

The Committee of Chess Opening Experts (CCOE) is currently accepting applications! If you would like to apply for a position on the committee, please submit an application below!

1) My daily rating is really low because I flagged and left a lot of tournaments a while ago. My rapid rating is around 1800.

2) My OTB rating is 1670, and my blitz is also around 1670. 

3) Yes, I would enjoy that.

4) Not the bongcloud. It's different for anyone, some people like to avoid smother, and some prefer playing theory. There's no clear definition of what a "Good" opening is, because everyone has a different preference of what types of positions they want to play. 

5) Same as my answer to number 4: I think most openings should be published, because everyone has different preferences. 

1) My daily is only around 1550 and like Nickolay, I barely spend seconds on my 100 games. Rapid at the time of writing is 2105.

2) I do not have an OTB rating because of the pandemic. I played in multiple OTB tournaments, all unrated, with good scores. Ina u2000 section of a 10|0 tournament I scored 4/6 and beat solid 1600s. If I had to guess, my OTB rating could be really anywhere between 1500 and 2000 - my online rating is inflated.

3) Yes, I am ready and willing.

4) There is no true definition of a “good” opening. There are solid openings, dynamic openings, risky openings, sound openings, and unsound openings. It also depends on the situation and when and where you plan to play the given opening. For example, playing the King’s Gambit against a solely Berlin specialist may be interesting, and speed chess openings are another world. Sound openings are theoretically proven openings that as white, keep at least equality and preferably strive for more, and for black, give a good chance for equality or guarantee a decent position going into the middlegame. Openings trusted by the top players and masters are good places to start.

5) I believe that objective soundness is not a good measurement of whether or not an opening should be published. If there are interesting and new ideas that could be explored by members, that is enough. The point of this club, as I percieve it, is as the name suggests, to be a lab, creating new openings. Most of the soundest, popular, or any trait that many would give a “good” openinv, have already been dug up by players before us, so we are looking in the discarded bin to inject life into offbeat or unusual openings. Of course, I’m not saying we should be spewing Bongcloud theory… I mean that we are here to find new ideas, not publish more and more repetitive theory on per say the Berlin unless there is something especially interesting.

yes that is pretty much guaranteed however something like 1. c4 and a3 and b4 expanding immediately may not be best but interesting

unless you are hikaru and play 1...h5 and 2...g6 as black