Possible Moral Dilemma

I had something 70% finished. I had something else  10% finished. And I have already agreed with those who said such a thing should be published. I do not have a moral standard which keeps me from working on them as I am working on both. There are many ways to test what I have done so far.

But it is something I cannot have published or try to publish until it is completed which some apparently do not agree. 

It was a theoretical question as I did not have anything finished to publish but then some decided to assign ulterior motives.

I really had a dilemma in my own mind as I know how hard it can be to publish a chess book on the opening. Most do not understand this dilemma and that is fine...    

Your true motif here is still unclear to me, David. So, keep writing.    

I have dilemmas which others do not have unfortunately... So they do not understand my own personal dilemmas.

But on the other question about publishing in a book--it is absolutely required that you have your work completed before a book publisher will consider it.

I'm in contact with quite a few chess publishers and authors. This statement isn't true. Many publishers and authors get together and agree on a project before a word is written. You could line up a publisher right now if you are willing to share with the publisher what your project is.

You do have my approval to get some chess-fame before You die. Do publish Your Taylor-move, when ever You consider it´s mature.    

It seems to me that when a man (or woman) starts discussing morals, ethics, or both; a lot of others start wondering: "WTF is he talking about?"  

Sure if someone talks about morals  or ethics some people wonder what that person is talking about. 

LOL!  You got me there.  I should've explained.  I won't drag this too far off topic with insights people don't care for though.  I've said enough.

You mean today it's unnecessary to test an idea over the board?  Do you mean computers can settle it for us on their own?  That doesn't seem  right.  Even if your analysis is computer aided, it still takes human+computer and it's still necessary to test ideas against these humans even if they too use technology to assist their analysis.

Hey ponz, I would gather other strong chessplayers that you trust (if you can), and see what they play and what they think. Best of luck!

Actually you can test new chess ideas without testing them over the board.

Fischer thought of a very good line vs the Petroff and he had not used the line over the board. He did not even have computer help but he knew the line was good.

Now we have computer help and it is quite possible to write a whole  book with the help of data bases of games already played and the help of chess engines and your own abilities.

If you have a special line or a special variation it is very hard to wait many months or years until you can happen to play the line over the board.

You could have a master help test some lines out by playing the lines against him on the internet but this is unnecessary.

There is already a vast amount of information available to help someone write a book with a host of new ideas.  

While I have written a book with a host of new ideas and novelties--it is very helpful to have someone help you check on your ideas [but not absolutely necessary as I have done it] 

The old masters did not have such resources and they had little choice but to test their ideas usually via their over the board games.

If the help is available--certainly it would be helpful to have a helper or co author who could work with you on new ideas in addition to the help you get from data bases and chess engines and your own abilities.

Same here. The decision whether to publish or not to publish is a gamble.

On one side (if your analysis is not yet complete), there is the risk of associating your name with a line that still has a major hole in it, only to see someone else succeed in fixing the hole and getting the credit for making the line truly playable.

On the other side, there is the risk that any delay might result in being scooped... that someone else might find the line and publish an analysis of it before you do.

Only the theoretician himself can properly assess these two risks, and decide which course is best.

If I found a forced winning line against the Sicillian(or whatever popular opening you wish to describe), I'd just enter a tournament and beat the asses of anyone who dared brandish a 1...c5 on me. 

helltank if you found a forced winning  line vs the Sicillian I would think you were the best player on this planet and several other planets and that you overlooked the chance to become a multi millionaire by just using the line to beat other players in a tournament.

Pushing the boundaries of Moral Dilemmas once again:

Ok, you've been under a big strain, what with the 25 online games you are playing at the moment in your two favorite openings.  You knew you wanted to play certain-certain variation on page xxx in the Ponziani Power book but you wanted to run one certain line against your chess engine.  But now you are 3 (locked in) moves away from the variation and are considering the moral dilemma of doing so now since it is so close to the variaton you meant to study.  What if it was 10 moves?  2 moves, or 1 move away from the variation?   So far as I know, the Chess.com policy only constrains on the move.  So far, I'm sleeping soundly, (no conscience problems).

Opinion?

Yes, there is a possible problem here.  I have had that problem myself. Suggest just to be careful, no more analysis on the chess machine for now as it might lead to a future position.  

I generally won't analyze any ongoing game position, that has had 10-15 or more moves played in it give or take (if it's very early in the opening and there are many options this is more of a possible grey area), that could directly arise from it. So for example, I wouldn't analyze a position that came about by me playing out (by myself) 5 moves, move-by-move, from a position I obtained from an ongoing game I am playing. That seems like a good way to err on the side of caution.

I'm not sure on the exact rules, as that would be hard to determine, but I do think it's courteous to try hard to not make the mistake of looking at computer analysis of a position that will most likely occur soon in one of your games. Or at least don't do so deliberately, but even though we can't always not make accidental mistakes, we can make them much less likely if we take a cautious approach.

If of course it's really that important to you to analyze a certain line, just resign the on-going game to ensure that you are not making use of an unfair advantage. It's better that the analyzing of the position comes at your expense rather than your opponent's.

I agree with you and have been doing exactly that for the same reason, I just wanted another opinion.