What's a novelty?

[Ozymandias]

I was going to reply to Dann's thread Gentlemen, start your engines: A 2 ply novelty with this question, but I thought it would derail the conversation and besides, the topic deserves its own.

As Nelson mentions in the quoted article:

Traditionally, the word ‘novelty’ has only applied to new positions obtained by titled players.

The problem starts when he proposes an updated definition...

which takes into account sources of games that have traditionally not constituted “chess theory”–engine games, games between club players, games played on Internet servers by anonymous nicks

For centuries, games were played and forgotten by history: casual friendly games, blitz games, club games dating back almost 250 years, even serious games between masters... lost in the mists of time. From the late 1400s to the early 1800s, only a selection of several hundred games have made it trough to us; basically, games published in books, featuring masters playing either among themselves or (just as a easily) the infamous NN player. In the 19th century, things started to look better for chess statisticians, and as early as the Chicago 1874 tournament, recording the games played, began to be imperative, at the organizers' request. Finally, in the 20th century, the extensive use of clocks, score-sheets, SAN and chess software, favoured the increase of games being recorded.

If we look at our DB, we'll see that among the millions of games available, only a small portion, fit the old definition. But it was popular for a reason; the same way that traditionally, chess games from the best players, were portrayed in books, low quality games would NOT be accepted as part of chess opening theory. This made sense, when the games of the masters weren't the ones being exclusively kept for posterity, a selection criteria had to be imposed.

The new millennium, however, would bring forth another computer development, which didn't exactly help the term "novelty": engines. When you have at home, a player entity of the world's champion caliber, what happens to that well defined distinction, between "masters" and "amateurs"? The very same thing than with "novelty", it becomes irrelevant. The former because both of them, "masters" and "amateurs", are now in the same category (humans) and the later because it's suddenly impossible to properly define.

Nowadays, the most anyone can say is, "this move is a novelty... in my DB".

[Dann Corbit]

I think the idea they are after is that it should be strong players so that the moves are fairly trustworthy.

A couple 800 Elo players on FICS don't really establish any chess theory.

[Ovyron]

I think the idea they are after is that it should be strong players so that the moves are fairly trustworthy.

Is this clearly defined? Like, a 2092 elo player makes some move never seen before, but nobody cares, then a player with 2093 elo makes the same move, and it makes it to the news? (feel free to adjust these elos accordingly, they just need to be 1 elo apart.)

Since elo fluctuates, doing it like this could cause some frustration (like a player knows they could have made the news if they played this novelty last week, but now their rating is too low.)

[Ozymandias]

I agree, Nelson's way to generous, when it comes to accepting a game in his DB, but my point is, even if you only accept master-level games (as I do)... how can you know that a certain position hasn't been played before?

I'm sure I have games Nelson doesn't, and vice versa, but even if we were to merge them (not happening), someone else could come along and point to an earlier occurrence. Ultimately, you can have in your DB, in-house played games just as deserving of trustworthiness, as any other publicly available.

I think the idea they are after is that it should be strong players so that the moves are fairly trustworthy.

Is this clearly defined? Like, a 2092 elo player makes some move never seen before, but nobody cares, then a player with 2093 elo makes the same move, and it makes it to the news? (feel free to adjust these elos accordingly, they just need to be 1 elo apart.)

Since elo fluctuates, doing it like this could cause some frustration (like a player knows they could have made the news if they played this novelty last week, but now their rating is too low.)

That would be another valid discussion point.

[FICGS]

"made the news", really ?

Anyway, when there are news, there is money, so there is no rule anymore IMHO...

[Ozymandias]

Example from the Leela blog, the real "novelty" comes at move 9:[pgn][Event "440 Gauntlet"] [White "ID440"] [Black "Gull"] [Site ""] [Round "2"] [Annotator "Voja"] [Result "1-0"] [Date "2018.06.25"] [PlyCount "79"] 1. Nc3 d5 2. Nf3 d4 3. Ne4 f5 4. Ng3 Nf6 5. e3 dxe3 6. fxe3 $5 {[#] A new idea for white: keep the queen in the game at an early stage. Interestingly, I did not find any examples of this line in 7 million games in the Chess Base. So, the game also has a theoretical significance!} (6. dxe3 Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1 g6 8. Bc4 Bg7 9. Ng5 Nc6 10. Bf7+ Kf8 11. Be6 h6 12. Bxc8 Rxc8 13. Ne6+ Kf7 14. Nxg7 Kxg7 $15 {Black is slightly better!} 15. Ke2 Rhd8 16. Bd2 e5 17. Rhd1 Kf7 18. a3 Ke6 19. Be1 a5 20. Rxd8 Rxd8 21. h4 a4 22. f3 h5 23. Bd2 Ne8 24. Nh1 Nd6 25. Nf2 b6 26. Nh3 Nc4 27. Bc3 Rd5 28. Ng5+ Ke7 29. b3 Nd6 30. bxa4 Rc5 31. Kd2 Rd5+ 32. Ke2 Rc5 33. Kd2 Rd5+ 34. Ke2 Nc4 35. g4 Rd8 36. gxf5 gxf5 37. f4 Ra8 38. Bb4+ Ke8 39. fxe5 Rxa4 40. Rf1 Nxa3 41. Bxa3 Rxa3 42. Rxf5 Ra2 43. Ne6 Rxc2+ 44. Kd1 Rh2 45. Rxh5 Kd7 46. Nf4 b5 47. e6+ Kc8 48. Nd5 b4 49. Rh7 b3 50. Rxc7+ Kd8 51. Rxc6 Rh1+ 52. Ke2 b2 53. e7+ Kd7 54. Rc7+ {1-0 (54) Mikhaletz,L (2485)-Moiseenko,A (2581) Ordzhonikidze 2001 } )e6 7. Bc4 {This is definitely the best square for the bishop!} Nc6 8. 0-0 Bd6 9. d4 (9. Qe1 $5 )Bxg3 10. hxg3 Qd6 11. Qe1 Bd7 12. a4 $5 { White intends to launch a pawn attack if the black king castles long.} Nb4 13. Bb3 a5 (13... 0-0-0 14. Bd2 Nc6 15. c4 Ne4 16. Bc3 Nxg3 $2 (16... Qxg3 17. d5 Qxe1 18. Raxe1 Ne7 19. Bxg7 Rhg8 20. Bd4 $11 )17. c5 $18 )14. Bd2 Nc6 15. Bc3 $5 { [#] The bishop on c3 supports the Ne5 for white!} b6 16. Ne5 Ne4 17. g4 $5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Qc6 19. Rd1 0-0-0 {[#]} (19... Nxc3 20. bxc3 0-0-0 21. Rd4 Qc5 22. Qd2 Qxe5 23. Rd1 $1 $16 )20. Rd4 $5 { Practically the best move for the white, the rook on d4 is of great importance.} g6 21. Bc4 Qc5 22. b4 $5 { [#] Now we can clearly see the important position of rook on d4!} axb4 23. Bxb4 Qxe5 24. Be7 Nd6 (24... Rde8 $2 25. Ba6+ Kb8 26. Rxd7 $18 )25. Ba6+ Kb8 26. Qc3 (26. Bxd8 $5 Rxd8 27. Qd2 {Also was very interesting for white.} )Bxa4 27. Ra1 c5 {[#]} 28. Raxa4 $1 {A quality sacrifice, now white has a very strong attack!} cxd4 29. exd4 Qd5 30. Bf6 $1 $16 (30. Rb4 $5 Rc8 31. Rxb6+ Ka7 32. Qb4 Rb8 33. Bxd6 Rxb6 34. Bc5 Qxc5 35. Qxc5 Kxa6 $14 )h5 31. Qb4 Qc6 32. Be5 $1 $18 { [#] After this move white has a decisive attack!} (32. Ra3 $5 )Rh7 33. Bb5 Qd5 34. gxf5 Kc8 35. Ba6+ Kc7 (35... Kd7 36. fxg6 Re7 37. c4 Qc6 38. c5 bxc5 39. dxc5 $18 )36. c4 Qc6 37. Bb5 Qb7 38. c5 $1 bxc5 39. dxc5 Kc8 40. Ba6 $1 {[#] A complete massacre. Adjudicated for white.} 1-0 [/pgn][pgn][Event "Cheng3_104_q6600"] [Site "Johan"] [Date "2011.08.17"] [Round "4"] [White "Ufim 8.02"] [Black "Cheng3 v1.04 x64"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "2568"] [BlackElo "2530"] [ECO "A90"] [EventDate "2011.??.??"] [PlyCount "87"] [TimeControl "40/660:40/660:40/660"] 1. Nc3 d5 2. Nf3 d4 3. Ne4 {[%eval -2,12] [%emt 0:00:20]} 3. ... f5 4. Ng3 {[%eval 10,12] [%emt 0:00:15]} 4. ... Nf6 5. e3 {[%eval 6,12] [%emt 0:00:17]} 5. ... dxe3 6. fxe3 {[%eval 3,12] [%emt 0:00:17]} 6. ... e6 {[%eval -14,15] [%emt 0:00:13]} 7. Bc4 {[%eval 0,11] [%emt 0:00:14]} 7. ... Nc6 {[%eval -9,15] [%emt 0:00:13]} 8. O-O {[%eval -5,11] [%emt 0:00:12]} 8. ... Bd6 {[%eval -2,15] [%emt 0:00:15]} 9. Qe1 {[%eval -2,12] [%emt 0:00:26]} 9. ... Na5 {[%eval -2,14] [%emt 0:00:13]} 10. Be2 {[%eval 10,12] [%emt 0:00:21]} 10. ... O-O {[%eval 1,15] [%emt 0:00:13]} 11. d4 {[%eval 10,12] [%emt 0:00:14]} 11. ... Nc6 {[%eval -4,16] [%emt 0:00:13]} 12. a3 {[%eval 1,11] [%emt 0:00:13]} 12. ... Qe8 {[%eval -13,15] [%emt 0:00:19]} 13. b4 {[%eval 1,11] [%emt 0:00:17]} 13. ... a6 {[%eval 0,15] [%emt 0:00:11]} 14. c4 {[%eval 6,11] [%emt 0:00:12]} 14. ... Qg6 {[%eval 3,15] [%emt 0:00:13]} 15. Nh1 {[%eval 14,11] [%emt 0:00:11]} 15. ... Bd7 {[%eval 8,15] [%emt 0:00:18]} 16. Nf2 {[%eval 19,11] [%emt 0:00:20]} 16. ... Rad8 {[%eval 4,14] [%emt 0:00:10]} 17. Nd3 {[%eval 31,11] [%emt 0:00:13]} 17. ... Ne4 {[%eval -30,15] [%emt 0:00:20]} 18. a4 {[%eval 32,11] [%emt 0:00:19]} 18. ... Ra8 {[%eval -32,15] [%emt 0:00:21]} 19. c5 {[%eval 35,11] [%emt 0:00:15]} 19. ... Be7 {[%eval -26,16] [%emt 0:00:11]} 20. Nf4 {[%eval 38,11] [%emt 0:00:15]} 20. ... Qh6 {[%eval -4,15] [%emt 0:00:12]} 21. Bc4 {[%eval 30,11] [%emt 0:00:15]} 21. ... g5 {[%eval 14,14] [%emt 0:00:10]} 22. Nd3 {[%eval 40,11] [%emt 0:00:12]} 22. ... g4 {[%eval -9,13] [%emt 0:00:13]} 23. Nfe5 {[%eval 64,11] [%emt 0:00:17]} 23. ... Be8 {[%eval -37,14] [%emt 0:00:15]} 24. Rf4 {[%eval 48,11] [%emt 0:00:22]} 24. ... Nxe5 {[%eval -36,14] [%emt 0:00:15]} 25. Nxe5 {[%eval 85,11] [%emt 0:00:10]} 25. ... Bc6 {[%eval -41,14] [%emt 0:00:09]} 26. Nxc6 {[%eval 64,11] [%emt 0:00:15]} 26. ... bxc6 {[%eval -52,17] [%emt 0:00:23]} 27. Rxe4 {[%eval 74,12] [%emt 0:00:18]} 27. ... fxe4 {[%eval -47,17] [%emt 0:00:19]} 28. Qg3 {[%eval 71,12] [%emt 0:00:14]} 28. ... Kh8 {[%eval -44,16] [%emt 0:00:25]} 29. Qxg4 {[%eval 71,12] [%emt 0:00:13]} 29. ... Qf6 {[%eval -31,16] [%emt 0:00:25]} 30. Qe2 {[%eval 81,12] [%emt 0:00:18]} 30. ... a5 {[%eval -12,15] [%emt 0:00:16]} 31. Ba3 {[%eval 56,13] [%emt 0:00:36]} 31. ... Qh6 {[%eval -1,16] [%emt 0:00:23]} 32. bxa5 {[%eval 0,12] [%emt 0:00:22]} 32. ... Bh4 {[%eval 27,16] [%emt 0:00:17]} 33. g3 {[%eval -13,11] [%emt 0:00:09]} 33. ... Bxg3 {[%eval 369,14] [%emt 0:00:13]} 34. hxg3 {[%eval -305,11] [%emt 0:00:15]} 34. ... Rf3 {[%eval 506,16] [%emt 0:00:27]} 35. Qh2 {[%eval -354,11] [%emt 0:00:23]} 35. ... Qxe3+ {[%eval 847,18] [%emt 0:00:21]} 36. Kh1 {[%eval -583,12] [%emt 0:00:08]} 36. ... Rxg3 {[%eval 833,18] [%emt 0:00:31]} 37. Bf1 {[%eval -652,12] [%emt 0:00:21]} 37. ... Rag8 {[%eval 818,17] [%emt 0:00:31]} 38. Bg2 {[%eval -696,12] [%emt 0:00:11]} 38. ... Rxg2 {[%eval 847,17] [%emt 0:00:31]} 39. Qxg2 {[%eval -830,13] [%emt 0:00:18]} 39. ... Rxg2 {[%eval 859,17] [%emt 0:00:14]} 40. Kxg2 {[%eval -904,13] [%emt 0:00:10]} 40. ... Qd2+ {[%eval 863,19] [%emt 0:00:36]} 41. Kh1 {[%eval -962,14] [%emt 0:00:24]} 41. ... e3 {[%eval 878,19] [%emt 0:00:16]} 42. a6 {[%eval -962,12] [%emt 0:00:11]} 42. ... e2 {[%eval 878,18] [%emt 0:00:16]} 43. a7 {[%eval -964,13] [%emt 0:00:17]} 43. ... e1=Q+ {[%eval 878,17] [%emt 0:00:07]} 44. Rxe1 {White resigns [%eval -1014,14] [%emt 0:00:15]} 0-1 [/pgn]

[Colin-G]

For me it is a novelty if the move has not been played before in my engine-engine match database of over 30,000 games.
Scid finds the novelty for me.
e.g. 12...Rd8 was the novelty played by Fire 7.1 in this position against Phalanx XXV yesterday.
[d]rnq2rk1/pb2bppp/1p2p3/2p5/3PP3/P1PB1N2/4QPPP/R1B2RK1 b - -
the full game is below
[pgn][Event "Arena tournament"] [Site "Aspire"] [Date "2018.06.29"] [Round "2"] [White "Phalanx XXV"] [Black "Fire 7.1"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E12u"] [TimeControl "40/300:40/300:40/300"] [PlyCount "81"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Nc3 Bb7 5.a3 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Qc2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 Be7 9.e4 O-O 10.Bd3 c5 11.O-O Qc8 12.Qe2 Rd8 13.Be3 Nc6 14.Rfc1 Na5 15.Nd2 Qc6 16.Qg4 Rac8 17.Nf3 c4 18.Bc2 Nb3 19.Bh6 Bf8 20.Ne5 Qe8 21.Bxb3 cxb3 22.Rab1 f6 23.Nd3 f5 24.exf5 exf5 25.Qg3 Rd6 26.Bg5 h6 27.Rxb3 hxg5 28.Re1 Qf7 29.Reb1 Qh5 30.f4 Bd5 31.Qe1 Rh6 32.h3 Bxg2 33.Nf2 Bf3 34.Kh2 Qh4 35.Qe3 g4 36.Kg1 Qg3+ 37.Kf1 Qg2+ 38.Ke1 g3 39.R3b2 Bxa3 40.Nd1 Bxb2 41.d5 {Arena Adjudication} 0-1 [/pgn]
Just testing posting with fen and pgn tags. All seems ok.

[yanquis1972]

Definition of novel
1 : new and not resembling something formerly known or used
2 : original or striking especially in conception or style

the 2nd definition is the more useful one, the 1st i find interesting in terms of trivia.

if the primary intention of noting novelty's is a quick & dirty mark of advancing chess theory, ozymandias (& the status quo) has it right. if the primary intention is one of statistical curiosity/trivia, nelson does.

but i don't interpret the quote as nelson proposing a change to the definition as-is, rather offering an alternative that has its own worth w/r/t, at very least, trivia ("a position never before seen in the catalogued history of chess") with a happy side-effect of occasionally revealing potential sources of inspiration & serving to mark advances taking place outside of sanction, OTB chess.

in chess notation they could be distinguished as "TN" & "N" (?)

[Ozymandias]

For me it is a novelty if the move has not been played before in my engine-engine match database of over 30,000 games.

Illustrating my point about the definition being quite liquid nowadays.

Definition of novel
1 : new and not resembling something formerly known or used
2 : original or striking especially in conception or style

the 2nd definition is the more useful one, the 1st i find interesting in terms of trivia.

if the primary intention of noting novelty's is a quick & dirty mark of advancing chess theory, ozymandias (& the status quo) has it right. if the primary intention is one of statistical curiosity/trivia, nelson does.

but i don't interpret the quote as nelson proposing a change to the definition as-is, rather offering an alternative that has its own worth w/r/t, at very least, trivia ("a position never before seen in the catalogued history of chess") with a happy side-effect of occasionally revealing potential sources of inspiration & serving to mark advances taking place outside of sanction, OTB chess.

in chess notation they could be distinguished as "TN" & "N" (?)

We all agree that some filter must be stablished. The part where everyone disagrees, is where the limit should be placed. Nelson accepts games by players with an online rating below 2000 (although I should clarify that he doesn't accept every recorded game), others stick to GM games (or a small engine-engine match database). Who's right? Everyone and no one. The delimitation was always artificial, but for a long time, it was practical. Now is artificial to the point of nonsense and hardly practical.

In the example I provided above, it could very well be argued, that Ufim 8.02, playing on the equivalent to an AMD64X2 4200+ with a TC or 40/20, just doesn't have the quality required to claim the novelty. The fact that it lost (while Leela won) is further argument. But it's all a question of where you drew the line in the sand.