Talk:Chess opening/Archive 1

message: Talk was getting pretty long and I hope it will get even longer, so I separated it into sections.  I hope this is an improvement.  Feel free to revert if it is worse. --Quale 02:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: === Separate page for each opening ===
I think it would be better to break up this page into each opening... a separate page for Queen's Gambit, etc.--Sonjaaa 07:33, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
----
Well, I think it's good to have an overview of openings here, but of course, there's no reason why individual openings (and eventually even specific variations) can't have a page of their own; some of them already do (Ruy Lopez is one example). --Camembert
=== Overhaul classification of chess openings section ===
I really think that the entire chess openings section could do with an overhaul. It contains articles of widely varying quality and correctness that are unevenly dispersed (e.g. there is no page for the Giuoco Piano, or the Reti, and in the main page I even saw somebody mark the Evans Gambit with a ?!. The King's Gambit page was full of lies; I gave it a quick once over but it is still very bad.) The job is too big for me to do alone; perhaps if there are enough chess players here we could divvy up the work, everybody writing the article about his favorite opening systems with some sort of standardization? (This post was added by 204.52.215.102)
----
I agree with 204.52.215.102. The list and descriptions of the opening should be consolidated. Right now it is a mess of descriptions and diagrams of different formats. Some have "main article:..." above the diagram, some have "see article ..." embedded in the description. Some important openings are missing entirely from this list (e.g. the Benoni Defense). This article served its purpose well when it was created, but now many of the openings have received individual articles and as this page has expanded we have lost uniformity. I would like to suggest that we do the following, but I think some input is in order before it is carried out:
#Create an individual article on the Queen's Indian Defense, the last opening here missing an individual article. DONE!, but I see we are actually still missing one; the Modern Defense. DONE BY Neilc!
#Change all redirects of individual openings from this page to the proper opening article. DONE!
#Remove all diagrams and descriptions of the openings from this page, merge any information which might be lost into the appropriate individual opening article. DONE mostly by Neilc!
#Instead, on this page we put a list of openings with a link to each individual article, along with the moves which define it. PRETTY MUCH COMLETED BY Quale! well done!
Example:
White opens with 1.e4
*Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5
*King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4
*Petroff Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
*Philidor's Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6
*Damiano Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6
*Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
*Scotch Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
*Giuoco Piano 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
*Two Knights Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6
*Evans Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
*Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Sjakkalle 12:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Modern is a different opening and deserved an individual place. Thanks Neilc for your effort. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Neilc 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the article 

message: I really think that the entire chess openings section could do with an overhaul. It contains articles of widely varying quality and correctness that are unevenly dispersed (e.g. there is no page for the Giuoco Piano, or the Reti, and in the main page I even saw somebody mark the Evans Gambit with a ?!. The King's Gambit page was full of lies; I gave it a quick once over but it is still very bad.) The job is too big for me to do alone; perhaps if there are enough chess players here we could divvy up the work, everybody writing the article about his favorite opening systems with some sort of standardization? (This post was added by 204.52.215.102)
----
I agree with 204.52.215.102. The list and descriptions of the opening should be consolidated. Right now it is a mess of descriptions and diagrams of different formats. Some have "main article:..." above the diagram, some have "see article ..." embedded in the description. Some important openings are missing entirely from this list (e.g. the Benoni Defense). This article served its purpose well when it was created, but now many of the openings have received individual articles and as this page has expanded we have lost uniformity. I would like to suggest that we do the following, but I think some input is in order before it is carried out:
#Create an individual article on the Queen's Indian Defense, the last opening here missing an individual article. DONE!, but I see we are actually still missing one; the Modern Defense. DONE BY Neilc!
#Change all redirects of individual openings from this page to the proper opening article. DONE!
#Remove all diagrams and descriptions of the openings from this page, merge any information which might be lost into the appropriate individual opening article. DONE mostly by Neilc!
#Instead, on this page we put a list of openings with a link to each individual article, along with the moves which define it. PRETTY MUCH COMLETED BY Quale! well done!
Example:
White opens with 1.e4
*Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5
*King's Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4
*Petroff Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
*Philidor's Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6
*Damiano Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6
*Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5
*Scotch Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4
*Giuoco Piano 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4
*Two Knights Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6
*Evans Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4
*Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3
Sjakkalle 12:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Modern is a different opening and deserved an individual place. Thanks Neilc for your effort. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Neilc 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul classification of chess openings section 

message: *1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 Marshall Defense (added)
:This is said to be unsound, but it might deserve a mention.  Also, if we have the refutation, it should probably get its own short article.  Marshall is said to have abandoned this opening after losing to Alekhine with it at Baden-Baden in 1925, although it looks like he got out of the opening OK and only lost later.  Also, in that game used a different move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5.  I don't know if that's the way Marshall usually played it. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an unusual line in the QGD. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual Queen's Pawn Openings 

message: This opening has no name.
1. e4...b6
does anyone know this?  Have you ever played an opening like this?
1. e4...b6        2. d4...Bb7
3. Bd3...e6       4. c4...f5
5. exf5...Bg2     6. Qh5...g6
7. fxg6...Bg7     8. gxh7+...Kf8
9. hxg8/Q+...Kxg8  
Black is winning!!!!!!!!!!
:1.e4 b6 is sometimes called the Owen Defence (or Owen's Defence) after John Owen, the 19th century English player, who did pretty well with it. --Camembert
::Yes, but White should deviate with 7.Qf5! or 8.Nf3!, after which he should win. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Owen's Defense (added) 

message: It's now in the list of variations, but it needs a short description in the prose and also someone to actually create Colle System.  Quale 06:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colle System (added) 

message: Does this deserve mention?  I'm not certain what it's called.  The Oxford Companion to Chess says Nimzowitsch Queen's Pawn Defence, which isn't a very attractive name.  A widely distributed file of ECO codes calls it Lundin (Kevitz-Mikenas) Defense.  MCO-14, NCO and BCO-2 all give some variations but don't name them. Quale 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.d4 Nc6 

message: === Ponziani question ===
Hey, I could use some help.  A recent addition made to the open games section was
*1.e4 e5 2.c3 Ponziani's Opening
Is this really the Ponziani?  I think it's just an unclassified King's Pawn Game.
My references give 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 as the Ponziani (this line is actually played occasionally even today), so this is what I had originally put in the article.  Now we have two entries for Ponziani's Opening.  After 1.e4 e5 2.c3 then both 2...d5 and 2...Nf6 are good for Black. --Quale 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other stuff 

message: Hey, I could use some help.  A recent addition made to the open games section was
*1.e4 e5 2.c3 Ponziani's Opening
Is this really the Ponziani?  I think it's just an unclassified King's Pawn Game.
My references give 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 as the Ponziani (this line is actually played occasionally even today), so this is what I had originally put in the article.  Now we have two entries for Ponziani's Opening.  After 1.e4 e5 2.c3 then both 2...d5 and 2...Nf6 are good for Black. --Quale 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ponziani question 

message: How should we classify the Catalan?
I temporarily put it in the Closed Games, but I should have payed closer attention because it's already in Indian Openings so I removed it from Closed.  I'll add some text discussing it in the Indian Openings section. Quale 05:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of the Catalan 

message: Which spelling do we prefer?  I've seen all three in print.
*Counter-Gambit Perhaps the most common, but I hate to needlessly hyphenate.  As words are used more often we tend to drop the hyphens.  The simple word "today" was once "to-day".  Used by The Oxford Companion to Chess.
*Counter Gambit Used by Reuben Fine.  I like this better than Counter-Gambit.
*Countergambit Seems to be a newer spelling, MCO 14 uses it. It follows the pattern found in "Counterattack", which I believe is always a single unhyphenated word.  I think I like this best.
We can create redirects as needed if we use the term in a title.
Quale 06:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Counter-Gambit" vs "Counter Gambit" vs "Countergambit" 

message: I will edit those(unless someone else does) when I have time to. I plan to do them all. Watch out for my spelling. Falphin 21:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Falphin are you the same one as 12.220.47.145? Sjakkalle 08:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends, if I forget to log in it is, but itsn't  only used by me.  The Kangaroo Defense is rare but I've never heard anyone call it the Keres Defense.  Falphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I can prove that, but I don't think it is that importantFalphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Wade Defense actually had an article already, the Rat Defense, but since your article is better, I will convert the Rat Defense to a redirect to your new article. Sjakkalle 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other responses to 1.d4 

message: I plan to write an article on the Halloween Gambit. But I'm not for sure if that is what it's called. 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?!  Anyone know, other wise I will just write it under the above name.(I won't write it until Monday). Falphin 19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: I removed the Halloween Attack listing from Open Games section.  It's just a variation of the Four Knights Game which is already on the list.  I think this main article should be a survey, and we shouldn't try to list every variation of every opening here.  Articles on individual openings can go into greater depth.  Quale 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Halloween Attack from Open Games 

message: This page says that "The Richter-Veresov is played at the top levels of chess", however on the Richter-Veresov Attack page it states "The opening has never been very popular at the top level, but various prominent players have employed it occasionally". I'm not familiar enough with the top level of chess play to decide which of these statements is more true, but hopefully someone with the knowledge will be able to fix this up a bit.
:It is definitely not a very common opening at the top levels. Themindset 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richter-Veresov Attack popularity inconsistency 

message: I complete agree with the anonymous user who removed the Monkey's bum variation. There are far too many of these silly variations appearing in this article, it's as if every reader who comes upon it is compelled to add their own little coffee-house line. I think this misses the point of the article, and perhaps a new article entitled Silly chess openings or perhaps the more professional sounding Esoteric chess openings should be created to catalogue such lines... What do you fellows think? Themindset 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, that variation is extremely minor. By the way, I think that anon is none other than Quale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I suggest you start an article called Unusual chess openings, I think that would be an excellent article to create. Themindset 09:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, but I don't know enough about chess to do it. Someone else will have to step up, I guess. Melchoir 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Fred Defence is OK to add to this main chess opening page as it is an opening, and not a variation of an opening like Monkey Bum is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monkey's bum]] etc... 

message: Removed pawn structure as one of the main goals of the opening. There are many other plans typically carried out in the opening but I don't think destruction of the pawn structure is the most important or the most common of these. I added these in an extra paragraph.
:Maybe it is an idea to keep the pawn structure mentioning (as the last item in the list), but add the other plans in a more extensive way. Bob.v.R 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anon was right in deleting it. Firstly, if we mention pawn structure, then we have to mention a whole slew of strategic plans (trading/ceding the bishop pair, control of key squares, gaining space, etc.) and it becomes a discussion of chess strategy in general. It's also overwhelming for a beginner who's only looking for a few simple tips. Actually, the "chess strategy and tactics" article needs expansion and probably needs to be split up into two articles - maybe that's where we should put that sort of thing. Walter Chan 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Walter, the article is not meant to be tips for beginners, it is supposed to be an encyclopedic treatment of the concept of the Opening in chess. Themindset 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening goals edit 

message: Why are certain openings called 'open'/'closed'? This terminology could do with explanation. 84.70.185.115 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Open/Closed games' terminology 

message: Is there a opening that starts like this that is significant enough to put in this article? It is similar to the Richter-Veresov Attack but it is more like a mirrored Italian Game rather than a mirrored Ruy Lopez. Either way, could someone give me the name of this opening and maybe direct me to some analysis on it? I've been playing this lately and I want to get some insight. Thanks.128.195.18.170 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4 

message: I deleted the Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6) from the article. There is no article on it, it is highly obscure, and it seems almost certain, absent ridiculous play by one or both sides, to transpose to some other opening such as the French Defense (after 2.e4 d5), Queen's Gambit Declined (2.c4 d5), Franco-Benoni (2.e4 c5), Dutch Defense (2.c4 f5) Nimzo-Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Kangaroo Defense, Bogo-Indian Defense, Sicilian Defense (2.e4 c5 3.Nf3), Benoni (2.e4 c5 3.d5), English Defense, Hippopotamus Defense, or Kingston Defense. If anyone disagrees, so ahead and write an article on the Horwitz Defense, then revert my deletion of it. Krakatoa 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6) 

message: I've made some changes to the beginning of the section opening nomenclature, removing egregious errors of fact (viz., an allegation regarding the absence of chess notation, which has been known at least since the 9th century in Arab countries, and the 13th in Europe) and replacing them with some general history regarding systematic opening study.  JStripes 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening nomenclature 

message: I got a start on splitting detail into subpages summary style, working on Open Game and creating Semi-Open Game and Closed Game.  The Indian systems are next up.  We already have a Indian defences page, which has a few good bits not in the Indian systems section but there's a lot to merge from this page.  It's harder to know what to do with the Chess opening#Other Black responses to 1.d4 section since this isn't a satisfactory page title.  Perhaps we could create a Semi-Closed Game page.  Semi-closed isn't as common terminology as Open, Semi-open, and Closed, but it is used.  Strictly Semi-open semi-closed should also include the Indian defenses, but we could direct readers to the Indian defenses page and then cover the Dutch, the Polish, and the rest. Quale 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style 

message: White snuck another knight onto the board in the illustration of the Queen's Indian Defense.  Knights appear on b1, g1, and c3.  Anybody know how to fix that?  --Badger151 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White has 3 knights... 

message: Why does this page take so long to load up? Does anyone else have this problem? Is it to do with the layout of the game diagrams? Moonraker12 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Question 

message: Really nice article, especially considering its large scope. A few small suggestions:
* The intro should make explicit the 2 meanings of "opening": stage of game; sequence of moves.
* The "center control" topic goes on too long about "classical" vs hypermodern view of the center - I think it would be better with 30% fewer words.
* It might be good to pull together the various statements of general aims in the opening (basic development; Fine's view; Silman's view) before describing specific opening "tasks".
* And of course more citations are needed. Philcha (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding general aims in the opening, basic development etc. It seems to me the issue arose before on Rules of Chess and the objection was WP:NOT 'Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual'. Whether that applies here I'm not sure, but give it consideration. ChessCreator (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there would be a problem with WP:NOT.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some small suggestions 

message: Language in lede referred to "this article" which is not recommended, so i struck it and did a tiny rewrite. i mention it here as this is an otherwise extremely mature and well written article, and i am not a regular contrib. if my phrasing is still not on point, please correct me, but i know that the striking of that specific language is necessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed lede 

message: I took the liberty of deleting the first paragraph of this article because it was not a good definition of 'Chess Opening' and dwelt on rather trivial semantics. 
Sure a chess opening can refer to either a stage of the game or a series of moves.   The key is that it is the initial series of moves but this was not stated until the second paragraph.  That the term can also refer to the stage of the game that encompasses those moves is a rather trivial point.  The fact that people use the synonym interchangeably in common speech is also trivial - since this is a general phenomenon for most synonyms.  For example, few people would have trouble understanding the sentence, "The blonde was happy she had blonde hair", where 'blonde' refers to either a person or a hair color. 
Its better to get straight to the point...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfero (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seemed sort of redundant with the second paragraph to me.  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted First Paragraph 

message: One line in the article reads
about the 1950s another objective has gradually become more dominant. According to IM Jeremy Silman, the purpose of the opening is to create dynamic imbalances between the two sides, which will determine the character of the middlegame and the strategic plans chosen by both sides. -  As far as know Silman is no great theoretician of the game,then why he and his imbalance theory given such importance in the article. Someone pl.tell me--binu (talk)
*The "According to IM Jeremy Silman" text is a bit awkward, but I think we would be on fairly solid ground if we just removed the in-text mention of Silman and kept his name in the footnotes while only making small changes to the remaining sentence. Silman is a pretty well-known author and his comments do carry some authority. He is the main proponent of using the "imbalance" vocabulary, but his overall ideas are shared by many. For example, one of the books I have, How Chess Games are Won and Lost by Lars Bo Hansen, devotes an entire chapter to the "Transition from Opening to Middlegame" where he goes through the strategical pawn structures that arise from the opening and the plans that each side then strive to carry out, which turns out to be a very broad subject that is not at all inconsistent with the "imbalance" interpretation of Silman. Simon Webb's Chess for Tigers devotes a chapter to selecting openings where he emphasizes picking the lines that lead to positions that you understand and know how to play well. (In Silman's terms, this would be lines leading to positions with imbalances that you know how to handle.) Something like "The dynamic imbalances arising from the opening will determine the character of the middlegame and the strategic plans chosen by both sides." should be OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IM Jeremy Silman 

message: Hmm ... can't seem to find a WP list of beginner's opening principles.  I see "aims of the opening" section in this article, but that's different.  Beginners' principles exist in the literature, shouldn't they be accumulated in a WP list somewhere, w/ brief definition? (Maybe a section in this article? I'm thinking entries like: "Don't move a piece twice in the opening", "Don't develop the Queen prematurely", "In the opening move only the center pawns", "[Develop] knights before bishops", etc.) If a list already exists somewhere and I've overlooked it, sorry, plz let me know, thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The second and fourth could go as sub-principles of "develop weaker pieces first". (And doubtless there should be a principle "don't treat these principles as dogma or take them overly literally"...) Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginners' opening principles 

message: Small issue, but this article switches between American and British English spellings of the word Defence.
I'm wondering if there's any reasoning behind this. Since I'm not aware of any, I'm tempted to switch to Defence. Joseph M Warren (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defence / Defense