Originally posted by heinzkathttp://www.redhotpawn.com/mastergames/index.php
Thread 97078
A good site cheers Heinz.
Next time someone ask's a question, think of the Master Game
that has an example - find game and PGN it.
Give it a try - think of a chess question and see if I can
PGN an example.
I was thinking about novelties earlier this evening. I had occasion to consult chesslive for one of my moves, and finding both suggested possibilities distasteful I (gasp) made a move of my own. What distinguishes a novelty from a blunder? Is it only subsequent analysis? I'd like to see an example of either a perceived blunder that was later defined as a novelty or a novelty that was later proved a blunder by either:
a) white playing the English, or
b) black playing the Leningrad Dutch
Originally posted by LukerikNow that is a very good question.
I was thinking about novelties earlier this evening. I had occasion to consult chesslive for one of my moves, and finding both suggested possibilities distasteful I (gasp) made a move of my own. What distinguishes a novelty from a blunder? Is it only subsequent analysis? I'd like to see an example of either a perceived blunder that was later defined as a ...[text shortened]... ed a blunder by either:
a) white playing the English, or
b) black playing the Leningrad Dutch
Has someone ever played a blunder in an opening that turned out
to be a good move and is now part of accepted opening theory?
The part...
'..or a novelty that was later proved a blunder.'
The graveyard is full of those I'm afraid. (I've added a few tomstones
myself over the years.).
Here lies Green Pawn's Opening Inovation,
Buried by a Neat Refutation
It will be hard to decide if some opening blunders were the result
of OTB inspiration or an idea off the board.
But a known blunder that turned out to be good move...?
A brilliant thought and I am typing this trying to remember one.
The annoying thing is, there is one and I'm going to spend all
day trying to recall it. Leave it with me.
(if someone else else can think of one feel free to join in)
1 edit
Originally posted by LukerikIt's a bit of a stretch to call it a "blunder" subsequently shown to be strong, but how about the Marshall Attack? After all, black lost the first game with 11. ... Nf6 and it was only later when 11. ... c6 was found later that it really took off.
I was thinking about novelties earlier this evening. I had occasion to consult chesslive for one of my moves, and finding both suggested possibilities distasteful I (gasp) made a move of my own. What distinguishes a novelty from a blunder? Is it only subsequent analysis? I'd like to see an example of either a perceived blunder that was later defined as a ...[text shortened]... ed a blunder by either:
a) white playing the English, or
b) black playing the Leningrad Dutch
Capablanca vs Marshall, 1918 - http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025