If you look at openings used seriously in high level competitive play, have any been discovered in the 21st century? The 20th century? What was the last time someone discovered a genuinely new “good” opening that nobody had ever considered before? Are there likely to be still undiscovered openings that we haven’t figured out yet?
Do you mean complete openings or are you also including variations in your question?
I think it impossible that someone will discover a completely new opening, i.e. in the first few moves.
International players spend considerable time analysing their own (and their rivals) openings.
Billions of games have been played over the Internet, providing an easy way to test out a new idea.
Computers also make it relatively easy to asses a new move.
The standard White openings are 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. Nf3 and 1. c4.
- g3 and 1. b3 are certainly playable, but give Black far more choice of reply (and subsequent set-up.).
Although White (with the advantage of the first move) can play other openings (e.g. 1. d3), they don’t offer such good prospects as the big 4 above.
Variations are being discovered all the time - but often a long way down a standard opening. (I remember one Russian Championship were a new idea was played at move 30!)
So if you want a ‘good’ opening, I have to go back to 1974 when Grandmaster Benko introduced the Benko Gambit, which starts:
I think that this depends on just how you define “opening”. In one sense, there are exactly 20 possible openings in the game of chess, and they’ve been known since the rules were set down. In another sense, every unique game of chess (and most games are unique) involves a deviation from other games at some point, and you could thus say that every unique game “discovers a new opening”.
[Moderating]
That kind of vagueness in the question makes it ill-suited for the GQ category, but this thread still fits in just fin in the Game Room, so I’ll move it over there.
As the replies already show, “opening” is a very flexible word. Look at @glee’s post, for instance, where he uses the word “opening” in multiple ways – all correctly, of course. (Such is language!)
Here he uses “opening” to mean the first few moves.
Here “opening” in practice might mean ten to even twenty+ moves, which is different from “first few”.
This passage uses “opening” to mean specifically the very first move of the game.
Such ambiguity isn’t a big deal, and any attempt at defining the word “opening” more rigorously would just make the word less useful. To quote US Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.” He’s not talking about chess, of course, but the linguistic idea holds.
1. e4 has a very different flavor than 1. d4, so those are very clearly worth thinking about separately. But 1. e4 e5 has a very different flavor than 1. e4 c5, so those too are very clearly worth thinking about separately. But 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 has a very different flavor than 1. e4 e5 2. d4, so those too… and so on. Thus, for each step down the tree, if it is useful to call it a different opening, it gets called a different opening. But all the earlier steps are also openings – just less specific.
Consider the names down one not unusual-at-all opening line.
1. e4 - King's Pawn Opening
1. e4 c5 - Sicilian Defense
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 - Sicilian Defense, 2.Nf3
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 - Sicilian Defense, Old Sicilian Variation
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 - Sicilian Defense, Open
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 - Sicilian Defense, Open, 3...cxd4
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 - Sicilian Defense, Open, 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 - Sicilian Defense, Open, 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 - Sicilian Defense, Open, 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3
Each step has choices, and each choice has its own flavor, so each choice gets a name. In some cases, the “name” includes move notations rather than some historically relevant proper noun, usually because there are different move orders that lead along related paths, sometimes toward other “named” positions.
At this point after 5. Nc3, there are 73,000 real-life, master-level games, and there are several perfectly good choices with distinct flavors. Choices (and the associated opening names) include:
5...d6 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Classical Variation
5...e5 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Lasker-Pelikán Variation
5...e6 - Sicilian Defense, Four Knights Variation
5...g6 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Accelerated Dragon, Modern Variation, 5...Nf6
These positions can be reached through different move orders, and that’s sometimes explicit in the name. Notice how the last one follows from 5…g6 but the name implies 5…Nf6. That’s because in the Accelerated Dragon, g6 is usually played on move 4, so this would be equivalent to playing 5…Nf6 in that more usual line.
Anyway, we might continue adding moves to our line:
5...e5 Sicilian Defense, Open, Lasker-Pelikán Variation
5...e5 6. Ndb5 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Lasker-Pelikán Variation, 6.Ndb5
…hiding the next few steps since the names are just the move notations, we continue:
5...e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Sveshnikov Variation
5...e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 - Sicilian Defense, Open, Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk Variation
This could continue further perhaps to the named opening “Sicilian Defense, Open, Sveshnikov, Chelyabinsk Variation, 9…Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.c3 O-O 12.Nc2 Bg5 13.a4” if we were to play those moves. And there are 1000 masters games in this position! It is well studied and certainly deserves a name.
So back to the original question: are new, good openings being found? Even for @glee’s example, the Benko gambit, the main idea of 3…b5 goes back to the 1930s and Benko’s favored continuation was already very popular in the 1950s. Benko popularized the opening further in the 1960s.
But new ideas are indeed being found, especially the deeper into opening theory you allow the question to probe. A few examples from the top-top levels (where people take novelties very seriously):
- In Grischuk-Vachier-Lagrave, Riga 2019, Grischuk avoided going into a Grunfeld defense – for which Maxine Vachier-Lagrave is the undisputed world expert – and opted instead for the rarer and rather sharp 3. h4 to challenge the King’s Indian setup. MVL went for Benko-style counterplay, leading to Grischuk’s 6. e3! which was a novelty.
This is precisely how new ideas are born. Time will tell how well this line fares as it is studied and tested in real play. As a side note, the broader idea of a very early h2-h4-h5 push by white has gained in popularity in recent years, and it is showing itself to be sound in many more position than previously considered.
-
Novel early material sacrifices are showing up. Rather than dig up a particular example, here’s an interview with world champion Magnus Carlsen where this is discussed (including how neural-network-based engines are influencing opening theory).
-
In the most recent World Chess Championship (November 2018; the 2020 championship cycle has been delayed), Carlsen-Caruana Game 2 started through 10. Rd1 following a line that has seen in 300+ masters games (Queen’s Gambit Declined: Harrwitz, Main Line, 8. Qc2 Nc6 9. a3 Qa5 10. Rd1). The players had made all these moves essentially instantly. Caruana then – still in mere seconds, indicating that he had this well prepared – played 10…Rd8. Carlsen was so visibly surprised that you got GIFs of it. He spent 17 minutes thinking about the implications.
In this case, 10…Rd8 wasn’t a strict novelty, but when the #2 player in the world announces that he thinks a rare move is sound against the #1 player in the world, it elevates it from something someone tried before to a real grown-up “opening”. The top three moves ever played at master level following 10. Rd1 before WCC2018 Game 2 were 10…Be7 (87%), 10…Ne4 (10%), and 10…Rd8 (3%), where I’ve ignored any even rarer moves in my counts. Since WCC2018 Game 2, the frequencies are 10…Rd8 (54%), 10…Be7 (46%), and 10…Ne4 (0%).
While these are just a few examples, there are enough new ideas showing up that a popular chess publication has a “Novelty of the Year” competition with many compelling nominations in a given year.
Pasta makes a good point that the word ‘opening’ means different things (especially to different levels of players.)
So let me suggest some definitions (at least for the purposes of this thread):
- ‘initial move’ means a first move by White (Chronos has mentioned that there are 20 such choices)
- ‘opening’ means the first 6 moves by both sides
- ‘opening variation’ means the first 10 moves by both sides
- ‘new opening’ means a new move within the first 6 moves by both sides
- ‘opening innovation’ means a new move within the first 10 moves by both sides
- 'innovation’ means a new move after the first 10 moves by both sides
So if the OP was ‘have any new good initial moves been discovered recently’, then the answer is no.
(In a British Chess Championship qualifier about 40 years ago, my youthful opponent opened 1. h4. I was able to dispatch him in 26 moves. 
)
There have certainly been many examples of opening innovation and 'innovation’ in GM games.
However if the OP was to ask ‘have any new good openings been discovered recently’, then I can offer an update to the Benko Gambit - the Monkey’s Bum. 
I have played this in an international tournament against a player rated 2250 (though I don’t know of any GM playing it!) and actually won a decent game.
P.S. If you want to know the source of the name, it’s because when it was first shown (at the London club Streatham and Brixton, I believe), a player remarked “If that’s playable, I’m a Monkey’s Bum!” 
In which case, one might meaningfully ask where the innovation is in any given game, because there’s almost sure to be one.
Well I was just trying to clear up the multiple meanings of ‘opening’!
Nice work, Pasta. I essentially found the OP’s question ungoogleable. Putting in things like “history of chess openings” or “chess openings first used” just came back with pages about the best openings to use, or what has been the most popular opening among GMs over time.
The general answer to the OP is that there haven’t been many changes to openings in a long time; the last big revolution being the “Hypermodern” openings of the early 20th century.
Recently we were vindicated by the deep learning engines (Alpha Zero, lc0, et al) which do not have an opening book. Even though these engines have played many surprising moves in the middle game, they essentially could only re-learn what we already knew about the openings.
This is another issue with defining a new opening. If an opening is known, but thought to be an obviously flawed curiosity used by almost no-one, does it count as “new” if analysis shows it to be playable after all, and it comes into favor?
Thanks everyone for the informative discussion. So like, even just 6 moves in, people are still finding new ways to play that hadn’t been seriously analyzed before?
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.
No, there are no new openings (in the first 6 moves) which are any good.
The Benko Gambit came out in 1974 and the Monkey’s Bum was also in the 1970’s.
If there’s any confusion, it probably stems from the fact that my take differs from glee’s.
6 moves
I don’t see a need to pick an arbitrary cutoff in number of moves for the OP’s question to be interesting or answerable. A beginner’s definition of the opening phase of the game might be when all the minor pieces and queen are developed, the rooks are connected (if not yet developed), and the player has castled. Those basic opening goals take at least 8 moves. If any pawns or tempi are traded along the way or if the placement of the rooks is considered, even the most straightforward openings involve 10 moves or so.
What counts as new?
New opening ideas follow an evolution. The Benko gambit is an excellent example of the steps along the way, and 1974 is at the end of the story, not the beginning. The main idea of 3…b5 was first played in 1936. The modern continuation 4. cxb5 a6 appeared in 1948 and marked the start of the gambit’s growth in popularity. It was played seriously through the 1950s and then extensively in the 1960s. Benko further popularized the opening in the late 1960s and 1970s, and he literally “wrote the book” on the gambit in 1974. But that was the culmination of decades of development, some by Benko but a lot by others. And it all started with a curious 3…b5!? played 40 years beforehand.
These days the timeline can be shorter given the power of computers, the speed of modern communication, and the more sophisticated preparation approaches used by top players, but the steps are all still there. And one can indeed find new opening ideas that are at all stages along that timeline.
Any good?
Whether an opening is good or not is itself a fascinating topic. The King’s Gambit goes back hundreds of years, has extensive developed theory beneath it, and remains one of the most popular openings today. However, it is not employed by elite players in classical formats. Does that mean it’s “no good”? Certainly not. It’s just that elite players with the black pieces can readily equalize (or gain an advantage), so white shouldn’t bother. In blitz time controls, elite players do use it, because in that format white can press forward with the intended messy, tactically sharp play – the point of the gambit in the first place – with black not having enough time to calculate through it. And at lower levels, the complications can be an huge advantage if white is better in concrete tactical situations or better prepared with the main ideas of the opening than his or her opponent.
On the flip side, there are areas of opening theory that are sufficiently complicated, double-edged, and yet strong if played correctly that you only see them in elite play. Lower-ranked players never venture into the waters by intention or chance, especially when the road involves visually odd moves or sacrifices with subtle but real compensation that must be milked just so. Such openings can’t be called “bad” since top players play them, but they would be bad for typical players.
Brand new moves still?
Without question, there are still new openings coming into chess. There are plenty of unexplored sidelines of sidelines. Computers and modern prep are helping the search. Players are finding justifications in a number of plans in 1. b3 systems, early h-file pawn advances, and in areas closer to current mainlines.
If we do pick an arbitrary 6-move cutoff and we restrict ourselves to just the past year and we restrict ourselves to only elite players (so as to have some sense that the move has some sense), a new idea just in 2020 comes in Grischuk (world #7) vs. Carlsen (world #1). This is a great example for many reasons:
- Grischuk’s new idea is on move 5: 5. d4!
- The idea was found in the very well-studied Rossolimo Sicilian.
- The move is a pawn gambit. (This is probably why it stayed well hidden.)
- If black takes the pawn, as Carlsen did, the chess engine Stockfish run to a fairly high “depth” of 30 evaluates the position as a very healthy advantage for white (+0.73), meaning that the gambit is more than sound.
- In the game, white’s advantage grew over the next few moves. Grischuk missed the best continuation after a while (per the engine) and Carlsen managed to equalize. The game was a draw (as are most games at their level).
I appreciate Pasta’s research and would like to add a further distinction between:
- new opening move (as Pasta posted in Grischuk - Carlssen)
- new opening system (as in the Benko Gambit and the Monkey’s Bum
Yes, the early moves of the Benko Gambit (3… b5, 4… a6) had been played before. But Benko added two important things:
- he was a strong player
- he continued the opening through a dozen moves or more (e.g. Black plays for pressure down the a+b files)