Talk:Queen's Gambit Declined

message: Should Semi-Slav Defense be listed in the bulleted list in the first paragraph?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it isn't a Semi-Slav then what is it? The names are only conventions, after all, and I'm in favour of broad interpretations wherever possible so that we don't end up with a bunch of rare sequences of moves having to be given their own separate names when they have no independent significance. 91.107.155.178 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting Out: Slav and Semi-Slav calls it the "Triangle Variation". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lars Schandorff also calls it that in Playing the Queen's Gambit -- A Grandmaster Guide. Krakatoa (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Slav

message: As I've also noted on the Tarrasch Defence page, I don't believe the Semi-Tarrasch belongs there; its place is with the main-line QGD family. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Tarrasch Defence 

message: I have done some changes to make it more readable. However I think a better thing would be if we gave the part on "Black avoids 3...Nf6" its own section then the main line would be 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 and all the different variations would get their own diagram and subsection. Does it sound good??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.227.81 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing Variations 

message: I think we should disperse the material in "Strategic Overview" into the relevant variations. This would make much more sense for the reader: "This is variation X and here are its strategical ideas" as opposed to now when it is separate sections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.227.81 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizing Material 

message: The Slav etc. is NOT a part of the QGD!!!! Anonywiki (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not correct.  For example, The Oxford Companion to Chess, p. 22: "Austrian Defence, 77, in the QUEEN'S GAMBIT Declined", and p. 365: "Semi-Slav Defence, 134, in the QUEEN'S GAMBIT Declined".  Also Ward's Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined treats the Symmetrical Variation and the Marshall.  I think I understand your point—Writers in some or even many contexts may take a limited view of what they mean by QGD (primarily the Orthodox V. for example), but others may have a more expansive classification in mind.  For that reason I am restoring the previous version of the article.  I suspect that you were Special:Contributions/24.80.227.81 who made similar edits in November 2009.  Quale (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, MCO-15 gives the Slav and Semi-Slav as part of the Queen's Gambit, but not QGD.  IT gives 2...e6 for the QGD.  My point is that MCO-15 is much newer than the Oxford Companion.  MCO-15 says that the Slav became the most popular in the last decade or so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think reverting was correct. You can't say that 2... e6 is essential when you could for instance transpose from 1 ... e6, via 2 ... d5 to a QGD. There are a myriad of other transpositions too - e.g. there is a trend these days for White to play 1. or 2. Nf3 ... clearly this gives Black the scope to delay ... e6, such that we might also get 3... e6 in a QGD. For me the principle is therefore clear. As given by Brace (pp. 231-232), it [the QGD] is "any opening sequence in which Black declines the immediate offer of White's pawn in the Queen's Gambit". The actual words (Queen's Gambit or Queen's Gambit Declined) are of course nowadays regularly omitted from an opening's description, because it is enough to say Albin Counter Gambit, or whatever. We know what it is without needing to be reminded of it's root each time. Because of this omission, it is easy to see that some confusion has crept in and it has become blurred as to whether certain openings with their own individual identity and increased popularity (like the Slav) were ever part of the QGD. I do agree that QG (rather than QGD) gets used for the Slav in a lot of opening manuals (Nunn's too), but I think this is just individual authors applying their own classifications to keep the QGD Orthodox lines distinct from everything else. Does this change in modern usage constitute a change in the definition? It could certainly be argued, but I'd personally rather stay true to Brace's definition; there is a simple logic behind it which disappears once you start to have exceptions. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: It is NOT the QGD unless Black plays 2. e6!!!

message: Hi, made some copyedits to lead, wondering if okay to remove 'Confusing' tag now.  (Or, was the tag referring to confusion in sections deeper in the article?)  Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you've cleared up the lead. I've removed the confused tag, if is it required then whoever adds it can explain why. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx!  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Confusing' tag 

message: The article mentions the above captioned Berg Defense. Would this be the variation 3...Bb4 itself please? It is not so clear ---- from the text it could be taken to mean that it is a synonym for the Queen's Gambit. May I also please ask from where the word "Berg" comes from? Thank you in advance.
Joe Gatt (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Berg Defense

message: I think there is a minor error in the text: This pawn structure gives White the opportunity to either advance his pawns in the centre by means of Nge2, f2–f3, followed by e2–e4, or .... Nge2 is not possibly prior to e2-e4. I think the fix is just to remove the Nge2 move. Most other articles on the QCD Exchange just mention central or Q-side pawn pushes.
Inizen (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Exchange variation