Openings are Established for a Reason!

I see post after post after post about claims of inventing new openings or establishing new lines.  There is a reason not to do that, and this game is a prime example.  There is a major difference between unorthodox (i.e. 1.b4, 1.f4, 1.Nc3) and trying to re-invent the wheel.  In this game, White started with 1.Nc3, which is fine, but the only good move at move 7 was 7.d4, transposing to the French Winawer with 7.Nf3.  Instead, White tries to be cute, and goes for an attack with two of his pieces completely unable to develop themselves.  There were many instances where White could win a pawn, but Black gets a massive attack with two inactive White pieces on c1 and a1.  For example, if White had played 13.Nxc5 Nxe5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.fxe5, Black cannot recapture with 15...Qxe5?? Due to 16.Bxf5 and if 16...exf5, then 17.Re1 wins the queen.  Black instead would play 15...O-O-O, with the threat of ...Qxe5, and if White chooses to hold on to it,  Black's attack more than compensates for the pawn.  In the end, White gets killed on the light squares.  Enjoy!

Colors are for art, pawns just get in the way, compensation is minimum wage; I only want to know about about materal balance and king safety ( creepy Dr.Szell ---"Is it safe?"). If I see reference to "weak squares","color complexes", or "favorable pawns structures" I immediately stop paying attention and move on. Players should be encouraged to try and find new openings and give them suitable names,then they should fortify their little army with lots of wine and send it off to kill the enemy king.

There are dozens of "truly acceptable openings".

The point of the O.P. is that you are too late to invent an opening, even if you are GM strength.

True. But I do think that there are potential for novelties to be still found in different lines. Although these days I think we just refer to them as " computer " moves.

Right on

Critics are kill-joys, if someone enthusiastically claims to have come up with a new line, applaud them for their effort and creativity. There is nothing positive about pedantically pointing out flaws, people who do that have wafer-thin egos.

"pfren wrote:"

Do my eyes deceive me? Can it truly be?

Pee Friends back again after all these years?

i fundamentally agree with thriller on this but i find it ironic that he says that while playing the obviously inferior 3.bb4 lol, without the pin, you have no winawer just the invitation of one . 4.a3! promises white a pleasant edge. 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3! nf6 6.e5 gives white a large advantage compared to normal french lines. In trying to return to main lines you invented a bad wagon lol.

one of the advantages of transposing to a french from two knights move order is skipping the winawer unless black wastes a tempi but for the longest time i was convinced that for a 1.nc3 the french transposition was inevitable as any attempt to remain offbeat was just plain inferior (only halfway decent attempt i seen is 1.nc3 d5 2.e4 e6 g3!? where nf6 is met with e5 and f4, d4 usually delayed line is equal but very double edged)
but i discovered from a chessable course this idea.

the idea is to play it like french advanced with c3,d4 a3, etc but to place the queen knight on f4. in some lines, white even plays ra2 to keep everything protected and steady and prepare b4 if qa5. engine says 0.00 equal but master games show white scoring fairly well. I think you can catch alot of french players off guard with it and they may misplay the position.

5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Ng5 Ke7 and Black is fine. Not better, just fine.

im talking about white here. White is clearly better. 0.6 , bishop pair in endgame position. playing for two results basically. This is not what a winawer player is hoping for . not many games in master database to no one's surprise but from 12 games, white scores 58%. 
it is well known that endgame positions like this agaisnt bishop pair, are miserable to defend unless black can force a trade of one of the bishops.

OP's statement is too abstract to mean very much. There are bad novelties, there are good novelties... there are bad moves that you didn't plan in the first place... OP doesn't play any novelties, just the same opening for 40 years or however long it is at this point. That's not how chess is played at the top levels, they play novelties there almost every game... and it's obvious why, so that just shoots down the OPs entire point, end of discussion.

Unusual openings can still be fun especially at lower ratings. For instance, people at my rating in bullet/blitz have a pretty decent chance of losing to an early queen attack. Heck, I've lost to pawns-only openings multiple times, despite having a relatively clean game tactically/principally (here's proof if you don't think that's possible: https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/yn42nf/dealing_with_heavy_pawn_pushing_openings/).

And what I am saying is you are claiming White is better based on an inferior Black 5th move. Your claim is 3...Bb4 is a mistake based on 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 Nf6 6.e5, and I am saying White is not clearly better because Black plays 5...dxe4 instead of 5...Nf6 and White's advantage is negligible.

Your claim about endgame bishop pair stuff assumes healthy pawn structure for the Bishop pair. This is more like an exchange ruy ending with colors reversed. Give me Black after 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.a3 Bxc3 5.dxc3 dxe4. It's equal, but Black is easier to play there.

I have not played the same opening for 40 years. The French isn't even my main defense to 1.e4 any more, but there are still ways to get me into a French.

And I never said novelties don't exist, but when I asked after the game "Why 7.c4? Why not 7.d4?", I was given the response that he simply didn't want to transpose and intentionally played a different move just because it was not d4. I never said novelties don't exist, and if he gave a rational reason behind 7.c4, that would be different, but if the only reason is intentional main line avoidance and you can come up with no reason at all for your move, it is NOT a novelty, it is just bad.

A novelty is more like what I played 2 months ago below:

The immediate 8...Ne5, while not the main line and probably not best, has a reason behind it at least. If White ignores and castles, Black can wreck the pawns and he has not committed to going kingside, he could castle queenside. If he plays what I thought was best, 9.Nd4, the game goes on as normal, I likely will castle kingside, and he has no early Ng5. If he trades (or she trades, in this case), which is what happened, I get a Exchange Ruy pawn structure with colors reversed. That is what happened, we got to 2 bishops each in an endgame, I advance the kingside, force off one set of bishops, then the other, and win the pawn ending.

There was rational logic to that novelty. A reason different than "It's not the main move" If that is your only reason, it is not a novelty, it is a bad move. BIG difference.

Bullet and blitz have nothing to do with the topic. You could play 1.h4 in bullet and it means nothing compared to 1.e4. All bullet is is who can push wood faster. Blitz is not much better.

When I talk validity of openings and novelties, it is strictly classical chess, over the board, with a long enough time control to be FIDE or USCF regular rated - not duel USCF, not rapid FIDE.

the comparison to the exchange ruy is silly. that is a well known 0.00 position. This is a 0.6 position with terrible statistics for black in master games. idk where you get the idea this is equal. an eval like that in an early endgame position, especially from a static advantage like a bishop pair that can avoid exchanges is a whole another deal than a 0.6 in a dynamic position with most pieces still on the board. a strong masrer will happily grind such a position with white anyday.