Different people see different things when looking at a position. You may see a good plan behind a dubious move that others may not see. Of course, you still have to prove it on the board that the move is indeed playable before it gains acceptance by others. Still, it's hard to say how certain people manage to see certain ideas that others cannot see. I suppose it depends on the individual's intellectual acumen, knowledge, and experience. I do think that knowing too many theories (particularly those who are new to chess) can in a way be bad, because they tend to accept the theories as is and play in a certain expected manner. Those who know less may play more creatively and are more likely to stumble into an interesting idea. I guess the answer to your question is just to try to play more creatively. Of course, you still have to back your move with logical reasoning and calculation. That's my personal opinion anyway.
when do you decide dubious isn't dubious !!
I hear very often maybe not in newer articles about IMs and GMs and sometimes rarely FMs that have produced great theroretical wins not from novelties but from moves considered dubious in the past. This made me think of a question I cant really answer and wanted to ask you guys. What does one look for when decideing weather or not a considered dubious move isn't so dubious or has great potential in doing something else ?
IMs and GMs engage in theoretical arguments almost every time they sit down at the board to play an otb game in a tournament. To find a TN (Theoretical Novelty) takes alot of chess knowledge, computer analysis, and games database research. Once a move is labeled as dubious in a reliable chess publication(s), there are reason(s) why. To decide that it isn't dubious is really an uphill battle. Because you are up against the observational proof of sometimes 1,000s of analyzed games.
Only in rare cases, especially with computer analysis today, will you find a move that has been labeled dubious because of faulty research.
To answer your question, What one looks for is the research, games analysis, computer analysis, etc. very carefully. And, only when one has well researched thoretical analysis, and analysis of games to the contrary, before one decides that a dubious move isn't so dubious and has great potential for something else. Otherwise you risk becoming a laughing stock and lose credibility in the chess world.
I hear very often maybe not in newer articles about IMs and GMs and sometimes rarely FMs that have produced great theroretical wins not from novelties but from moves considered dubious in the past. This made me think of a question I cant really answer and wanted to ask you guys. What does one look for when decideing weather or not a considered dubious move isn't so dubious or has great potential in doing something else ?
IMs and GMs engage in theoretical arguments almost every time they sit down at the board to play an otb game in a tournament. To find a TN (Theoretical Novelty) takes alot of chess knowledge, computer analysis, and games database research. Once a move is labeled as dubious in a reliable chess publication(s), there are reason(s) why. To decide that it isn't dubious is really an uphill battle. Because you are up against the observational proof of sometimes 1,000s of analyzed games.
Only in rare cases, especially with computer analysis today, will you find a move that has been labeled dubious because of faulty research.
To answer your question, What one looks for is the research, games analysis, computer analysis, etc. very carefully. And, only when one has well researched thoretical analysis, and analysis of games to the contrary, before one decides that a dubious move isn't so dubious and has great potential for something else. Otherwise you risk becoming a laughing stock and lose credibility in the chess world.
+1 Thanks that makes alot of sense.
I hear very often maybe not in newer articles about IMs and GMs and sometimes rarely FMs that have produced great theroretical wins not from novelties but from moves considered dubious in the past. This made me think of a question I cant really answer and wanted to ask you guys. What does one look for when decideing weather or not a considered dubious move isn't so dubious or has great potential in doing something else ?