Pale Horse, Pale Rider wrote on 02/20/14 at 22:44:47:

"Didn't know all this" seems unlikely, because several books that give 5.Qe2 are listed in the bibliography of King's Gambit. There are more examples like this one, a lot more. How many of those N signs are "true"? Hard to say. The N matter is complicated, some ideas in KG seem actually new, but don't have the N. 

Hans Ree has written an article in NIC Magazine 6 (2013) p. 102-105, about his own love to the King's Gambit, refering to Shaw's book, calling the work "impressive". Ree's piece is full of personal and historical musings about the gambit. It gives a hint how rich the history of this opening is. It is a pity that Quality Chess has chosen to focus on the N side of the opening, badly ignoring the O (for Oldie) aspect.  

You have written "author/editor". It would indeed be interesting to know how much of the book is pure Shaw and how much editing there was by Jacob Aagaard. The phrase "technically, this is not a novelty" turns up in older books from Quality Chess, before the era Shaw. So I'd suspect that it comes from Aagaard. 

By the way, Aagaard has contributed one of his games plus a very detailed analysis on pp. 291-295 (excellent work, imo). But you can't be sure that this is his only contribution. There is occasional material in other QC books with the Aagaard sound.

It seems Quality Chess is really stretching their use of the 'N' symbol in some cases. Disappointing, and a case of false marketing since they can then claim their books contain that many more novelties.

dfan wrote on 02/20/14 at 14:46:26:

I think in this case the new move following the rare move should be labelled 'novelty' ...

Pale Horse, Pale Rider wrote on 02/20/14 at 12:10:07:

Yes, this would be a possible interpretation: N for new move, a move not published before, TN for a N accepted as strong by the editorial staff. - But I suspect that Chess Informant had to reconsider their practice when the ECO series started. They had probably intented that in later Informants an N should only be used for moves not before considered in ECO volumes. Following this logic, the early ECO C had no use for "N" anymore. But in later editions the N sign made a reappearance. Apparently the N was too useful. 

But I can't claim that I fully understand the Chess Informant logic. Neither do I understand what the N stands for when John Shaw or Jacob Aagaard are using it. Quality Chess books contain sentences like "Technically this is not a novelty, but..." So it seems that there are cases when a move isn't new, but Quality Chess doesn't care and puts an N behind the move, because - well, I have no idea. When you know earlier sources which have given a move, why can't you just credit the earlier author? Wouldn't this be the honest thing to do?

TalJechin wrote on 02/19/14 at 16:30:00:

By the way - I wonder: who invented the N sign in opening books? Doesn't it basically have the same meaning as Oskar Cordel's sign * used in his Führer durch die Schachtheorie (1888)? The German theoretician defined the new sign on p. xi of the work as follows:

Quote:

On second thought, does his * sign really mean the same as the N sign which we see in more recent works? By his definition, Cordel is using the * sign only for moves suggested and recommended by him - moves that haven't appeared in earlier sources. He might as well have used the N sign, as a shorthand for "Neuerung / novelty", because this is exactly what he claims. 

Chess Informant has had various definitions of the N symbol. In volume 10 there are even two symbols: 
TN "a theoretical novelty / Theoretische Neuerung" 
N "Novelty / Die Neuerung". - I can't tell the difference between the two.  

In vol. 11 N is defined as "A novelty / Die Neuerung". In later volumes, the TN has gone. Now it is just N "a novelty / eine Neuerung". I've also seen (where?) N defined as "novelty in the system of Chess Informant", or something similar. A definition that makes it possible to say "1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 Ne4N".   

John Shaw gives no definition of "N" in his The King's Gambit at all. How many N moves in this work may be actual novelties?

Thanks Stefan! I'll have a look at your 11.Qd2N in a few days. 

Nice to see some new ideas for White at last!

PANFR wrote on 02/19/14 at 11:52:43:

Thanks for the hint, so it seems I have to buy the Sakaev book. Does he cover the strongest move 9.d4? This is a line where I'd really prefer to be White.