Talk:Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings

message: I just renamed the article from Encyclopedia to Encyclopaedia.
According to the publisher's web site, the title contains the extra 'a'. -- Dominus 14:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the GB publisher.  Prices are in GB pounds.  My paper edition has it without the extra "a".  Bubba73 (talk), 19:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my books are first editions without the "a".  Newer printed editions have the "a".  Bubba73 (talk), 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Still sold in the UK at chess events, various copies on amazon.co.uk as I check now. If you require new then it's also possible to buy them direct from http://www.sahovski.com/products/eco/index.php SunCreator (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I disagree entirely. ECO is important to most chess players. It's far more likely to be of interest then the multitude of chess player bio's that are rated high. The traffic stats show this is the case. http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Encyclopaedia%20of%20Chess%20Openings http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Andrei%20Sokolov http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Akiba%20Rubinstein etc. So not only is ECO high it's higher then many of the other highs. So mid would be inappropriate. SunCreator (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could bring this discussion to WP:CHESS to broaden the debate ? SyG (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rated Lucena position, Philidor position and several other articles (mostly articles that I made substantial contributions to) as "Low" importance because I think they are specialized and are very important to chess players but not that important to a general encyclopedia.  If this was WikiChess.org, I'd rate them (and ECO) "High".  Bubba73 (talk), 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually Lucena and Philidor are both rated Mid importance.  I rated Lucena as Mid, someone else rated Philidor as Mid.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Title 

message: Do anyone know where I could order/buy these books from? I'd like the books, the printed editions, and I can't find them on any site (for instance, amazon.com and the like) whatsoever. Even on the homepage I can't find an option for ordering printed editions, only the electronic editions or CDs which are far inferior. — DeclinedShadow (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still sold in the UK at chess events, various copies on amazon.co.uk as I check now. If you require new then it's also possible to buy them direct from http://www.sahovski.com/products/eco/index.php SunCreator (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: buy

message: I changed this from High importance to Low importance.  My rationale is that I think that Top and High importance articles are ones that are more important for the general reader to read.  ECO is important to chess players, but not so important to general readers.  The more chess-player oriented an article is, the lower importance as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree entirely. ECO is important to most chess players. It's far more likely to be of interest then the multitude of chess player bio's that are rated high. The traffic stats show this is the case. http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Encyclopaedia%20of%20Chess%20Openings http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Andrei%20Sokolov http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Akiba%20Rubinstein etc. So not only is ECO high it's higher then many of the other highs. So mid would be inappropriate. SunCreator (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could bring this discussion to WP:CHESS to broaden the debate ? SyG (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rated Lucena position, Philidor position and several other articles (mostly articles that I made substantial contributions to) as "Low" importance because I think they are specialized and are very important to chess players but not that important to a general encyclopedia.  If this was WikiChess.org, I'd rate them (and ECO) "High".  Bubba73 (talk), 15:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually Lucena and Philidor are both rated Mid importance.  I rated Lucena as Mid, someone else rated Philidor as Mid.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006225438/http://www.masterchessopenings.com:80/overview-eco-codes to http://www.masterchessopenings.com/overview-eco-codes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110021002/http://www.chessinformant.rs/content/eco/index.html to https://www.chessinformant.rs/content/eco/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The only ECO volume I have is the much criticized 3rd edition of Volume B, which does not credit individual editors for the various subsections, merely listing them on the copyright page. Not sure if we should include all the credits in the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credits for sections