Today in the World Cup (1st tiebreak game) Kobalia was probably slightly disappointed after he tried to play the line against Kramnik himself:

I fully understand that it's a game of chess and. as in any game of chess, Black faces certain problems. What I found somewhat silly, however, was that a move like 10.h3 should be regarded with so much reverence (as it was, for example, in a recent NIC yearbook article). I assume that some people will disagree with me, but why my point of view should boggle anyone's mind, I cannot imagine.

I don't say I know a path to +=, but White's stock in 1.e4 has hit an all-time low if moves like d3 in tbe Spanish and 10. h3 in this line are the best that he can do.

Another strong grandmaster bites the dust against h3 in an official long timecontrol rated game, see:

Blacks concept looks risky but I didn't check it with a computer so maybe it is playable.

With the way chess is nowadays white has no burden of proof unless black makes a mistake. Black is okay, and it is white's task to set practical problems in the hopes that he errs. Those problems are rarely permanent when viewed through the theoretical lens. I see no reason to view 10.h3 in a harsh light when white fails his burden of proof task in the Marshall, etc. If playing good moves in the Ruy Lopez isn't enough to reliably net an edge, then why the criticism of this? Mind-boggling. 10.h3 provides an additional weapon for white players, and it has some bite. That makes it useful from a game-theory perspective. Play it in correspondence and you will likely draw, but the same is true of the black side of other openings white may choose. Modern players need all the options they can get that make the black player work for his half point.

Ametanoitos wrote on 05/03/13 at 14:09:34:

I assume you mean
On my blog I discussed 14.Be5 see my own game against Karasik in which I also played Qb8 and 14.Rad1 see game below. 
Black has at my opinion several playable lines but I don't dare to state that we can show a forced drawing line for black as white simply has too many options.

micawber wrote on 05/03/13 at 10:58:35:

The discussion about what is a novelty and who can claim it, has been done many times without any clear outcome. Personally I find a simulgame of Tinsley in which he played (very likely) just from sight a standard waiting move against the fresh world champion Lasker, not really sufficient to claim something. Neither are blitzgames or games played by girls under 12 years old. However if I look to correspondencechess then the last 2 games played in 2011 and 2012 are showing lot of resemblances with Kramniks game (not only h3 was played but also followed up by Qf3) . The white players (Cvak and Kruger) are both rated + 2300 so we can safely assume the move h3 was not played lightly. Also we can be pretty sure that Kramnik does look to correspondence games to find new ingredients for his OTB (in fact I also do). 

Conclusions.
1) Yes I do agree that the move has been played earlier. 
2) Also I do agree that the concept around the move h3 has been introduced a bit earlier in 2 correspondencegames compared with Kramniks game.
3) Kramnik was the first person able to attract attention by the broad public to the concept.

Personally 2 and 3 are for me valid claims for a novelty but not 1.

BPaulsen wrote on 05/03/13 at 06:18:45:

I fully agree. In fact I see this novelty everywhere popping up around me (which was also mentioned in my blogarticle). It is today a very popular way to avoid loads of theory and preparation while still maintaining a certain tension in the position which permits to play for a win. Yes exactly what most clubplayers are searching for !!