If you have a refutation of a major opening, publish it. Not here, but in a book. Make some money for your discovery. You've discovered something valuable. Share it with the world, take credit for your discovery before someone else does, and get the credit you deserve.
Hiding a new discovery won't erase it. Someone else will find it eventually too.
I am not hiding anything. I am working on something but would never say I had something until it can be verified by my own analysis.
But generally the new stuff I do find are not what others would also find.
example [ david taylor move] or many things in the Ponziani.
Of course you should share it! That's the beauty of life! We're always learning new things, and if we don't share them with the world we don't make progress. This is the exact same way that all the other openings and variations have come into being, and is good for the game.
Yes, many men and women have spent years working on this opening, but even they had t have realized that some day someone would find something that they were missing and show them where they were wrong.
"But generally the new stuff I do find are not what others would also find."
It seems a little arrogant to assume that you have a better ability to find an idea than anyone. You might be smart but there are a lot of smart people out there lol.
Elubas when I say generally the new stuff I find are not what others would also find--Contrary to your assertion that I am arrogant and that I assume I have a better ability to find an idea than anyone--you are simply wrong to make such assertions or implications==there are reasons that what I find would not be found by others that have nothing to do with how smart or dumb I am or how smart or dumb some others might be.
Please take back your assertions and implications.
"But generally the new stuff I do find are not what others would also find."
It seems a little arrogant to assume that you have a better ability to find an idea than anyone. You might be smart but there are a lot of smart people out there lol.
Sometimes being lower rated, (or in Elubas' terms less smart,) can actually be an advantage. Because such people can think of ideas higher rated players would reject on gereral principal. Their minds are less bound by the parameters of perfection. Even Bobby Fischer used to watch lower-rated players play, to pick up ideas from them.
Fischer actually DID find a refutation for a main-line variation in the Petroff, a line that had been played thousands of times and was considered dead equal.
Instead of publishing the refutation, he kept it secret... not out of any sort of angst, but because he was saving it for some really important game, like a Candidates Match game (Petrosian, for example, was a Petroff player).
He eventually broke down and showed it to a fellow American GM, Walter Browne, after swearing him to secrecy.
The next time Browne reached that position in a tournament game... he used Fischer's new line, winning the game (vs Bisguier) and revealing Fischer's "secret weapon".
Varelse, I don't agree with you. To know when to reject a principle is precisely one of the components of a stronger player in the first place! It's in fact quite easy to regurgitate rules of great players; problem is, lower rated players don't know when they are actually true! In no way do I think lesser players have some sort of a "better perspective" due to their ignorance. Truly strong players, wise as they may be, don't let themselves be bound by anything.
"Even Bobby Fischer used to watch lower-rated players play, to pick up ideas from them."
With due respect to Bobby, I can't find a time where I have ever empathized with this. Of course, players with overall lesser skill can know things that higher rated players don't, but that's despite their lower playing strength, not because of it.
Perhaps Varesle just means that inexperienced players are less dogmatic, less bound by convention than experienced players are. I'm sure he/she isn't claiming that they are stronger.
And I don't agree; I think, because of their better understanding of chess, they are in fact less bound by generalities than weaker players. They are more likely to know the difference between, say, a king hunt, and a king walk, even though in both cases the king is "wide open." I think weaker players are more likely to follow rules blindly, without understanding what they are really doing. I am certainly less dogmatic now than I was when I was, say, 1600.
The only players who are less bound than grandmasters are new players, and at that point it's not an advantage.
In the currwent votechess960 #1, perhaps whites finest move, 36.Kg2, was originaly proposed by a 1200 player. When I first saw it, I laughed. But he got me thinking. Finally, we came to realize he was right in the money. This was exactly the move that gave white the best winning chances.
"Out of the mouths of babes...." goes the saying.
It's like praising a monkey who plays random moves: (not specifically referring to the 1200 here, just your general point) Once in a blue moon he might make a move that bests houdini and the best humans simultaneously. It's not saying much. If I was looking for someone to find novelties, everything else being equal I'd pick the better player any day. Strong players, like I said, know the rules, and know well when to bend them too.
Anyway, ponz, I don't care what the reason you give -- that you have some kind of special way of thinking that smarter people don't, whatever -- it's still a rather obnoxious assumption. We are talking the entire world of chess players here.
It's also entirely possible to pick the right move for the wrong reasons. You let the 1200 play his brilliant move, but because he doesn't understand why it's good, the poor follow up will immediately lose the game. It doesn't matter if a master could take that non-intuitive move and win with it, the 1200 player can't.
True that, wafflemaster.
The point I am making is, do not automaticaly dismiss an idea, based soley on the source.
but more to the topic, Elubas may be right, in saying that Ponz being a bit arrogant. But you know what? who care? trusting in anybody elses judgement is simple subservience, if you cannot trust in your own first.
If Ponz thinks he has a decent Novely, then he should play it. Either it works or it doesn't. Most likely standard chess only has 20, 30 years left at most.
By then most people will be sick of the intense opening theorys, and move on to Chess960. So whatever damage he can do with his novelty will be limited to that timeframe.
... Most likely standard chess only has 20, 30 years left at most.
By then most people will be sick of the intense opening theorys, and move on to Chess960. So whatever damage he can do with his novelty will be limited to that timeframe.
Oh no! 960 times more opening theory!
Elubas is assuming I am arrogant because of my statement that the new stuff I find are likely not what others would also find. He assumes bad motives in that my statement means I am stating I am smarter than others etc.
Elubas did this to me in another forum. In the other forum he made statementss indicating that I would be inclined to tell someone to resign in some situations. In fact, I am 71 years old and do not remember EVER telling anyone they should resign in my whole life.
Why assume bad motives?
The main reason I am more likely to find moves or variations in chess that others probably would not find is because I study openings that others do not very much investigate. Now tell me how many masters or grandmasters are looking for innovations in the Ponziani Opening?? Think about it--how many even play the Ponziani Opening? How many people on this earth are sitting there trying to find new moves and innovations in that opening? Answer, is very very few, if any [besides me]. So, it stands to reason that if I find an innovation it would be in an area or opening that others probably would not find.
Same thing happened some years back when the Center Counter was not thought of as a viable opening by many. I decided to try and find new ways to play the Center Counter [ 1.e4 d5 2. exd4 Qxd5] and at the time--there were very few people trying to improve or find innovations in that opening. I did find some innovations and wrote a book on that opening and at approximately that point this opening started to gain in popularity. Now there are many masters and grandmasters who are studying this opening and many innovations are being found.
I have a tendency to look at certain openings that others disdain and then of course if I find something in those openings-=-it would very likely be that others would not have found the same thing --simply because others were not interested in the openings I was studying and thus if they were not studying such openings--how could they find innovations???
This has nothing to do with me being "arrogant" or that I think I am so smart that others could not do what I did but has everything to do with my studying of openings that others disdain or disdained from studying.
Well, that's what I suspected as a possible reason -- for example, I'm sure it would be easy to find novelties after 1 h4, simply because nobody else looks for them.
However, the way you worded what you said was very misleading -- you really could have just said "Most people don't look at this opening" (that wouldn't take up any extra space) -- instead, you chose to word it rather slyly.
But even then, disregarding lines like 1 h4, there are surely specialists (who could be grandmasters) out there for less popular openings -- chances are those who published their analysis on such openings already found little improvements here and there (but didn't necessarily publish them -- people don't want to write a book every year) -- it's inevitable.
Masters and above know that the move 1. h4 is so terrible that it cannot be rehabilitated--so they will not try and find opening novelties for that move.
You state that the way I worded what I said was very misleading and that I should have just said "Most people don't look at this opening"
Here is what I said: " But generally the new stuff I do find are not what others would also find. example [david taylor move] or many things in the Ponziani."
There are several reasons that I am likely to find things others might not find and the fact that I look for novelties in the Ponziani Opening is one of them. But I was not giving the several reasons for my statement just making a statement. It is not necessary to pick out a possible ulterior motive. When people do complex things such as looking for novelties--very often they have several ways to look for such novelties and some or even one of these ways to look for novelties may be almost exclusive to the person looking.
Why pick out a possible ulterior idea that I am arrogant? The fact that I was looking in a rarely played opening should have given you a clue and if you did not have a clue you could have just asked rather than assigning an ulterior motive.
You should know better by now as you were assigning ulterior motives to me on the other thread. Until finally you realized I had no ulterior motives in the thread.
If there could be several reasons someone says or does something and you do not know which reason or reasons someone says or does something it is not proper to pick out a reason to degrade another person.
You, yourself admit that you suspected one of the real reasons, for my statement was that very few people try to find the novelties in the Ponziani --yet instead of saying that might be one of my reasons you picked out an ulterior reason/motive.
The dilemma was in my own mind as I abhor hurting someone else and, from eperience, I know the blood, sweat, and tears from writing a book on the opening.
So, I concede to the general opinion...