Re: "It was not checked by anyone, so it must be wrong" is not really a valid line of reasoning"... (H.G. wrote)
Something being not yet worthy of trust is a shade different than being said to be wrong (or proven to be).
In 'Secrets of Practical Chess', GM Dr.[of math] John Nunn wrote of little- or un-tested sequences of play (in over-the-board games of strong players) in the opening phase of a game, that are recommended by chess authors, not to trust them to be in your chess opening repertoire (especially if you must rely on just such sequence(s) to keep your repertoire from going under, I'd add). Meaning, I suppose, treat them like rubbish until proven otherwise. Or, let someone else be the Guinea Pig - probably the advice was especially meant for players well below GM level.
That was back in the 1990s, when commercially available computer engines were mostly still relatively weak, though. Nowadays maybe you can count on what you come up with at home using a chess engine as to be virtually golden.
Re: "It was not checked by anyone, so it must be wrong" is not really a valid line of reasoning"... (H.G. wrote)
Something being not yet worthy of trust is a shade different than being said to be wrong (or proven to be).
In 'Secrets of Practical Chess', GM Dr.[of math] John Nunn wrote of little- or un-tested sequences of play (in over-the-board games of strong players) in the opening phase of a game, that are recommended by chess authors, not to trust them to be in your chess opening repertoire (especially if you must rely on just such sequence(s) to keep your repertoire from going under, I'd add). Meaning, I suppose, treat them like rubbish until proven otherwise. Or, let someone else be the Guinea Pig - probably the advice was especially meant for players well below GM level.
That was back in the 1990s, when commercially available computer engines were mostly still relatively weak, though. Nowadays maybe you can count on what you come up with at home using a chess engine as to be virtually golden.