A few openings were total shocks for the players at the time, because they emerged in openings that were already deeply studied (or so everyone thought) :
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 (Ulvestad)
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4 4.g4 (Zviagintsev - Krasenkow)
Earlier than move 4, there can be unusual move orders (like 1.a3 e5 2.c4) that will tranpose to theoretical positions, with a few subtleties on the way.
Let's be careful with what we call "brand new", too. Every legal move sequences have been tried up to eight plies, maybe, but it doesn't mean that these sequences were developed as openings, i.e. whole systems with plans and prospects for the middlegame. For example, the moves that define the Vaganian Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 d5) were known before Vaganian turned this sequence into an opening that bears its name.
With these two considerations in mind, I side with Watson who thinks that new openings will always emerge.
Yes!
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/tma-white-and-tmd-black-completely-new-openingsAlthough TMD is probably just bad, TMA looks playable. Four games with engines (by another lichess member) resulted in 3 draws and 1 loss, so TMA is actually something that can be played.
No, I do not think we will see any truly new openings (none that are good, anyway). However, I do suspect we will see new trends as old openings rise from obscurity, for the following reasons:
- Carlsen's willingness to take his opponents out of book and "just get a playable middlegame" will influence future generations.
- Some openings are plenty good enough and just need a super-GM to champion them to popularity beyond the club level.
- As draws become more prevalent at the highest level, tournaments may be restructured in the upcoming decades to discourage playing for a draw (e.g. 3 points for a win, faster time controls, etc.).
Depends mostly on the definitions of "new" and "opening"
Is "new" only "a move sequence that has literally never been played before" (then: definitely not), or also "a move sequence that has been played in some game at some point, but was seen as weak" (then: most certainly yes)
Is an "opening" only something that happens within the first 3 moves, or also a 10th move novelty within a subvariation of opening X? Where is the border between "just a move", "just a variation", and a whole new opening branch?
For example, let's take the following modern way of combating the London:
1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d5 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nd2 e6 6. Ngf3 cxd4 7. exd4 Nh5
The oldest game in my database from this position is from June 2016(!). It doesn't have a name, but let's pretend it's called the "Kryvoruchko-Variation" (since that's who apparently played it first; fingers crossed my database is correct). Would this qualify as a new opening? Or is it just a minor variation within a sideline opening?
In some post here, someone said 5..h6 in the Sicilian isn't a new opening, but just a Sicilian that branches into a sideline on move 5. But then, would the Berlin, or even more extremely, the Marshall Attack, count as new openings? If we pretend the Marshall was invented tomorrow, that'd be "just a mainline Ruy Lopez that branches into a less mainline variation on move 8"?!
If we don't determine what "new" and what "opening" means in this context, then this is more of a semantics question than anything. I will be right in saying "Yeah, there will be new openings" (rediscovered old ones which become strong due to something that was missed in the past), and someone else stating the opposite - "No, there won't be any new openings" - will be correct just the same (if they mean "a sequence of moves 8-10 ply deep that has literally never been played before")
I think all 'new' openings and variations, need approval from at least 2600+ GMs. If they don't play it - then it's not a 'new' opening or variation.
Until then we amateurs can call it what we want, but I think it's important to keep doing that - maintaining our creativity and hopefully also improving our own play.
But it's a very interesting philosophical question, exactly what defines "new" and "opening" in this context?
The opposite is also in effect, what happens if a specific line/opening hasn't been played by top level GMs for a period of time?
Should it still be considered as a variation, and maintained in our public chess consciousness?
Of course openings not played by top GMs for several years should stay in the public chess consciousness.
The Scotch was no longer played until Kasparov resurrected it against Karpov.
The Berlin Defence of the Ruy Lopez was forgotten until Kramnik played it against Kasparov.
The Italian Giuoco Pianissimo was nowhere until Caruana and Carlsen played it.
The London System saw no play until Kramnik and Carlsen picked it up.
All is new that is long forgotten.
