A theoretical novelty is a new line in a well established opening. That position you arrived it is most definitely not well established (only 8 games), so the definition of theoretical novelty doesn't apply. 

Batgirl,

I love your comments, but some of them seem to be nit-picking.  Obviously, a TN must be sound and not lead immediately to a losing position !  The chess.com computer set to a grandmaster level of 2500 states that Ne7 is the strongest possible move in that position .  The game was played between two Senior Masters and the TN was confirmed by a GM, so we have a legitimate TN according to most annotators!  Boondiggity claims that it must be a well-established line and that 8 games is not enough to establish a position.  I have never heard that claim, but agree that it seems reasonable.  Under that definition, Ne7 would be only a novelty, not a TN !

Some annotators would claim that only a FIDE IM or Grandmaster can produce a TN!  I do not follow that particular style of annotation, so you will have to allow for personal idiosyncratic behaviour.

I beat my first master in 1982 and have played at that level for many years.  Since I have never played in a FIDE rated tourney, I do not have a FIDE rating, but I crush many FIDE masters on a regular basis in computer play.

When I play a TN or just a novelty at Chess.com, I brag about it in this blog and you should too!

Sincerely,  Sam

"A TN (Theoretical Novelty) is any move that has never been played before at the master level."

So, a master-level blunder might really a theoretical novelty?

While it may, indeed, be a novelty, I'm not sure a "new" move in and of itself constitutes a theoretical novelty unless it has sufficient theory to back it up.  But now, since part of the definition of a "theoretical novelty" is its existance within the framework of a master-level game, I must assume that the two players in this game are recognized masters.  

Batgirl ,

A TN (Theoretical Novelty) is any move that has never been played before at the master level.  Of course, only one TN can appear in a game, as the introduction of it becomes the stem game for the new variation.  Some TN's are weak, of course, and do not get incorporated into theory, but this TN by black seems sound ! Also, the Chess.com computer analysis says that it is the best move with a score of -0.14!   I expect it to be played again.

Sincerely,  Sam

EmmaO ,

Of course, you are correct that the sac is sound and led to a winning position!  Black will avoid this position in the future because the sac is sound and will be added to theory!

I thank everyone for the good comments,  Sam

The sack made all the difference. The end game wll look better for white

Some questions about the "theoretical novelty" -
How do you know the move is indeed a novelty and what is novel theory behind the move? 

SilentWalker ,

You make a great point about his letting me into his queenside.  He did not expect a sacrificial attack!   You must look at a position from your opponent's point of view!  He would never have played b6 if he had suspected a sacrificial attack.

Idosheepallnight ,

As black in this position, I would never have resigned without sac'ing something on the kingside.  That was black's only chance.  I never expected the game to end here!

Thanks for all the comments,  Sam

No reason to resign here !!! Bxd6 and black can not win the end game but can try to generate a strong attack of his own on the white king.

Very poor to give up trying. At least sac a few pieaces at the white king.

Very interesting ! Thanks!

I am surprised in that he let you walk right into his queenside where his king was at with little to no resistance. That is surprising for somebody rated so high.