Talk:Two Knights Defense

message: Is there anybody who could create the beginning of the articles on Estrin and the Max Lange Attack ?
--Eric Guez 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: ... and the same for Sveshnikov ?
--Eric Guez 14:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question n°2 

message: Every single line of the Two Knights ends in equality?!  Says who?  The idea that 4.Ng5 Bc5!? equalizes is particularly surprising.  I thought Anand pretty much refuted it in a game against Beliavsky some years ago that began 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.Bd5! -- although Anand managed to lose. I also doubt the Fritz and Ulvestad lines equalize, and 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 is pretty fishy, although I'm not sure if it's been refuted outright.  I doubt whether there's even a consensus among theoreticians that Black equalizes in the main line after 4.Ng5. Krakatoa 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Table of Variations looks fishy 

message: I have a couple of concerns with the tabular presentation of the opening moves.
#The tables are an absolute bear to edit.
#The tables make it unclear which move is actually characteristic of the variation.
As to issue 2, it is possible in the text to specify which moves characterize the variation, but I think it shows that the theory tables at once give too little information and too much.  In Ulvestadt's V. it is well known that 6.Bf1 is the correct reply, but people still do play 6.Bxb5? and that's still part of the variation.
I do like the clean look of the table, but I'm not sure it's the best presentation of the information for the wikipedia audience.  If the Ruy Lopez article goes this direction it will need a major overhaul.  The current presentation of the Ruy is far from perfect and I expect that it will improve as people have good ideas, but I don't know if a theory table will be the best way to go. Quale 01:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quale has a point. Right now this table just gives main lines (e.g. Bf1! in the Ulvestad and Fritz, 5.Bxf7+! in the Wilkes-Barre).  I don't know how, or if, the tables can really give useful guidance to readers. As we all know, NCO/ECO/MCO/BCO would spend several pages of small print on the Two Knights, with 200 or so footnotes. We can't very well do that here. On a more minor point, where do we put equals signs and such, and is there a way to make the symbols for "small advantage White," "large advantage Black," and so forth? Krakatoa 16:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah -- put the evaluations between the td tags -- I took out the ='s that were there earlier. ThreeE 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chess Opening Theory Table]] 

message: Two different spellings, "Ulvestad" and "Ulvestadt", appeared in the article. I've changed it to the first throughout, which is the one I've seen elsewhere. If this is not correct please amend 213.249.135.36 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulvestad 

message: Can someone tell me (or point me to a source that tells me) why white plays 5.Bxf7+ and not 5.Nxf7   it seems to me that Nxf7 wins black's rookAndrew zot 11:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that after 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+! white is in some danger of getting mated.  Not that 5.Nxf7 isn't played, but if theory hasn't changed since I last looked at this (quite possible), black gets enough of an attack to ensure at least a draw by repetition, despite the loss of material.--OinkOink 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m sure this is what attracted me to the Italian Game in the first place; in one line (I can’t remember where; Traxler? Jerome?) it had Nxf7, forking Queen and Rook, and the comment said “ White is now doomed, and faces checkmate in x moves” ; it was so counter-intuitive, I was hooked! Moonraker12 09:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 5.Bxf7+ is indeed a very strong move and most likely better then the chaotic Nxf7 ChessCreator 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand how white would get mated, 5.Nxf7! forking Queen and Rook then 5...Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Ng4+? 7.Qxg4 Qe7 8.Nxh8! with white in a clear lead. AS Artimour (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  One example. 5....Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7. Kg1 Qh4 8. Nxh8? (8. g3 Nxg3 9. Nxh8 Nd4 10. hxg3 Qxg3+ 10. Kf1 Qf4+ 11. Kg1 Qg3+ 12. Kf1 Qf4+ draw by repetition) Qf2# ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why 5.Bxf7+

message: The article used to say that the Two Knights was "analyzed by Polero in 1580".  Now it says it was "first recorded by Polerio in 1580".  This may be true, but it should be checked against sources to make sure it's accurate, as the new claim is stronger than the old one.  I think I added the original sentence to this article a couple of years ago taking care to base it on one of the sources listed at the bottom of the page.  (Unfortunately I didn't use inline cites.)  It might require a different source to justify the new claim.  I'll look at the sources I have.  Quale 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I got this from the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games ; I’ve added it as a source. Moonraker12 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to apologize—I do. Sorry, you're right.  (Actually I mean I'm glad you're right, I'm sorry I questioned it.)  I didn't have any reference materials handy, but looking it up in H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess, page 824 says Polerio was the first to put many openings in print: QGD (Slav Defense), fianchetto defenses, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Nimzowitch's D., Pirc, many variations of the King's Gambit, Center Game, several variations of the Bishop's O. including the Boden-Kieseritzky G., Latvian G., Two Knight's D., and Four Knights Game. Quale 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the source for this, as I've found a better one. Estrin's Two Knights Defence states Polerio first analyzed this in 1560 (!); though again, most of the  work on it was done after the 1850's. Moonraker12 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Actually, now it looks as if he wrote it when he was 12 years old! Still, thats the date Estrin gives, both in the forward, and in the chapter on the Morphy variation (that's the line Polerio followed). I'm getting a bit lost, now! Moonraker12 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Estrin is mistaken, or it's a typo. (If the book is a translation, that could also be the cause). Our article on Giulio Polerio says he is ascribed some manuscripts from 1580 to 1600.  Murray lists a manuscript from around 1574 that may be due to Polerio, but that's the earliest date for any of his writings I've seen. The manuscript that introduced a large number of openings is reported to be from 1594.  Quale 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re probably right about the Estrin reference, but… it’s a source, what can you do? And I re-checked the  OECG reference; my mistake (again!) it was a game by Greco in 1620, not Polerio (and it followed a different line to the one given by Estrin).(This is starting to feel like trying to nail a jelly to the wall!) How about “the late 1500’s”, or “the latter part of the 16th century”, with the same source? Moonraker12 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've gone with that. Moonraker12 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polerio 

message: Wouldn't this article more accurately named defence. Having checked a little the word 'defense' is an Americanism and is given as an 'U.S. spelling' in English dictionaries - have a Collins dictionary in my hand. Also http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?js=off&dictionary=Choose+your+dictionary&text=defence
I've only seen chess books use the term Defence. See cover picture here -> http://www.amazon.com/Knights-Defence-Batsford-Chess-Openings/dp/0713484411
Wikipedia uses the word defence for all countries except the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_minister  ChessCreator (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Knights Defence 

message: This article as currently written seems more like an essay in a chess newsletter than one for Wikipedia. Especially egregious is the use of last names only, which would be like writing an article about the American Revolution and only using "Howe," "Marion" and "Bergone." 24.24.244.132 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wike or Chess World

message: (10/08/12) The move 8.Qf3 in the main line is really more complicated and interesting than described. The current comment is strongly inaccurate and has to be modified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.95.80 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Untitled comment) 

message: I found Estrin's 1970 book in Russian in djvu format, so I suppose it can be cited. He is the ultimate source for most of the analysis presented, including the lines attributed to Gligoric/ECO. He names "V. Lopukhin" as the originator of 7.Nc3 but gives no other details. His bibliography at the end includes various Soviet chess magazines, so my guess is that Lopukhin was an amateur who wrote a letter to one of these magazines pointing out 7.Nc3. There is also an A. Lopukhin who was awarded the Soviet Master title in 1978 but that looks like a different guy. Alternatively, we could link to Harding's 1996 chesscafe article which presents more or less the same analysis. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Russian edition also cites the game Van Steenis-Vlagsma, Beverwijk 1942 which Harding also cites in chesscafe kibitzer #5 and #33 as an important theoretical game demonstrating the unsoundness of 4...Nxe4. Estrin considers both 8.d4 and 8.dxe5 to be good.MaxBrowne (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I've added from Estrin The Two Knights' Defence 1971 English edition, replacing Gligoric/ECO (which clearly just replicated). Even the Harding/Botterill refs now are for the most part redundant to Estrin's 1971 analyses. I didn't re-include 8.d5 line because of Chesscafe 9...Kg8!! (Maric's move). Lastly, Estrin gives 4...Nxe4? (while Harding gave 4...Nxe4?!). IHTS (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estrin and 4...Nxe4 

message: > Other sixth moves have scored very badly for White.
This doesn't seem true. Stockfish recommends 5. Nxf7 with more than +2 advantage for white. The defense from black attack is not even that hard and after dust settles white have at least extra exchange and a pawn (or even a full rook if black doesn't play correctly themselves).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.213.13.93 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Traxler variant 

message: I think for e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 nf6 ng5 d5 exd5 nxd5?!, Nxf7 should have a !?, as it is a sacrifice of a knight, and several sources state that (lichess.org's opening explorer or the book chess openings for kids) Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nxf7!? 

message: After Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5? The computer deems d4! as a mistake and says that if you play d4? you missed a brilliant move, it says that Nxf7!! is brilliant. Sources: 
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/5cxgQaqPrN?tab=review (d4?)
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/81262329958?tab=review (Nxf7!!) Edit of edit (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already mentioned in the article. I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here. Perhaps you mistakenly think article talk pages are forums for general discussion? --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: my suggestion for annotations is associated with the 2 knights defense with Ng5 and the engine is in agreement. Edit of edit (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages are to be used to improve the article. You haven't said anything intended to improve the article, just reiterated material that's already covered therein. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nxf7!! and d4?