Possible Moral Dilemma

[before I start this is not about the Ponziani Opening]

Suspose you like to study openings and you find a forced line against a very well established  chess opening played by millions from novice to grand master to super grand masters.

You know that there are many authors of books on this opening and that the authors have spent months and many years on this opening. And there are thousands of pages of analysis on this opening which also required blood, sweat and tears--but you have a way to play against this opening which may cause it to no longer be played by anybody rated 2000 or higher... 

You really do not want to hurt the work of others and you really do not want to cut out the fun for others who play this opening. 

You do not want to hurt others but the dilemma is that it is hard to keep the "truth" to yourself?

Suggestions?

have you actually done ths or are you just asking?

As Nietzsche says, the truth is terrible. But what is worse?! Living a terrible lie! It is up to those who feel saddened that their opening is bad to turn that negative feeling into a positive source of affirmation.

part  I am working on a possible line and of course there are hundreds or thousands of varations so do not yet know for sure. 

Re Nietzsche  billions live a terrible lie but is not giving out information really a "lie"??

Well. obviously I have seen some of Bobby's winning games with flaws and have told nobody.  Even one of what some say is among his best.

Nobody is purfect.

you could potentially make money from your study. find a grandmaster that plays the opening but does not play it as it should be played according to you. If you sell it with a non disclosure to others. this grandmaster may have an advantage  in competition since nobody knows about it.
I see no moral dilemma. I think this happens more frequent than we know.

Yes. it would be possible to sell  as you described.  But it is a theoretical question as I know to give a really good line vs an established opening that is good enough to play at the super grandmaster level is near impossible or exceedingly rare.

As somebody who has written opening

books I know that if you spend months and  years on any certain opening that it would be very hard if someone came up with a refutation as that happened to me but fortunately for me I was able to counter very well. 

Ponz, it's like "amazing inventions".  Things are "in the air".  Many of those inventions were discovered at the identical time as others.  Someone else probably has already discovered your move, with not so altruistic intentions regarding said move.  

  I suppose the sad part is you are unable to play at the master level anymore due to your health so you can't be recognized as the discoverer, and you aren't writing books anymore so you can't be recognized that way either. I think if I were in that position I would give the move to a friend who could use it at the highest level.  Maybe auction it off on Ebay?  I just read about a fisherman's exwife in New Zealand who auctioned off her ex husband's fishing spots for $10 grand.  

I am not so sure I cannot play at the master level anymore--had a friend, expert here visit and played two clock games with him.  But I just cannot play at my former correspondence level which was over 2500.

It would be very hard to auction off as people would not know what they are buying and they might buy something totally worthless--same problem at grandmaster level or super grandmaster.

I am absolutely sure nobody has discovered this line or series of moves.

I have played a lot of unique lines that nobody played before which is already part of established opening theory but the line were just add ons not something that would refute a whole opening. 

play it on an online private game against me, u win try playing it and if you win (almost sure) play it against a GM here.

The whole point of finding better moves is to improve chess for everyone.  If someone thinks a varaition or opening is ruined by better refutations, let them find one to refute that.  Otherwise, we would still be on 1. e4  e5 and end.  Ruy Lopez would be sitting in his "monktuary" worried that he over analyzed.  And the world record for the high jump would still be 4 feet two inches because nobody wants to hurt someone's feelings.  As Admiral Farragut at the Battle of Mobile Bay said - "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!"  Build that better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.

Somehow I'm missing the "moral dilemma" part.

I think if you care about chess, and it's players, you will share the line, tons of people will work on its flaws, or flawless-ness and you will learn without ego that you are wrong... Or even better right and can name the line and enjoy knowing you have left another little mark on the world. Share information, help each other and give freely... This is our future :-)

I can't even believe something like this could be considered hurting. That's how a scientific process works! In science should we stop researching in fear of disproving scientific ideas that some people have spent their lives on, even though those ideas probably disproved other ideas before them anyway? Ideas should get all of the wrong-ness out of them until they aren't wrong anymore. It doesn't mean that those analyzing the opening did a bad job -- quite the opposite -- but nobody is perfect.

All of that work that the authors spent was about trying to accurately convey the opening as best they can. A further discovery, especially a refutation of something existing, will simply make more progress towards that goal.

Just like in the resign threads, you are so eager to relate emotionless things to politeness.

Sounds like strong stuff - I find it hard to believe that it´s possible, now, to refute a whole opening, ie not merely a line or a variation; even more so, when it´s one which is still being regularly played up to super-GM level.

Fischer claimed to have done just that with his famous "Bust to the King´s Gambit". His move 3... d6 (which wasn´t new, but the reasons for it and the follow-up were) is now called the Fischer defence. He also published the article in the Chess Quarterly before he started playing it in tournaments, I think (please correct me if I´m wrong). What´s to stop you doing that, ie simply publishing?

As for the moral side of it - if you´d discovered a cure for cancer and were keeping quiet about it, that would be a moral problem. But we´re talking about a game! Are the GMs who discover good noveltys and win prize money with them immoral, just because their opponents have spent maybe months of preparation on other variants? I don´t think so.

Of course you should publish.  This is the cycle of chess openings.  Also, your line may also be refuted upon inspection.

A mathematician publically proved Galois' Theorem only to have his proof fall flat when inspected by the mathematics world (he later successfully proved the theorem).

In court the answer is affirmative, omission is considered a lie.

It's done like this:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/livechess/invinted-a-chess-opining-and-trap-how-do-i-get-it-named-after-me

no good player minds disclosing his great moves, he just wants that master level point for using it.  Then it's named after him.

 So I wouldn't call it a "moral" dilemma, it's just the old problem of how to get credit for something you worked your butt off to get.  I'm with Ponz on this one. 

Probably You should start to write a Book and that " How to destroy the x opening" or " Beat  Carlsen on the x Opening"  and make same money