Talk:Queen's Gambit

message: The trap 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3 "only" wins a piece, not a rook. Black can play 6...Nc6 7.Qxc6+ Bd7. Still Dbenbenn should be credited for his wikifying of the page. 129.177.61.123 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad.  I'm not a chess expert.  If you haven't done so already, feel free to clarify this point within the article.  dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are not a chess expert what are you doing editing a chess article in an encyclopedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First, if White wants his pawn back instantly after 3....Be6 he can play 4.Qa4+. On the other hand if White just develops normally and stays a pawn down he should have enough compensation. The bishop on e6 is misplaced, blocking the e-pawn and if White gets a knight to g5 or f4 it will probably have to move and let go of the pawn.  When I checked this database and entered the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6, I found 96 games, in fact Black has won a fair number of them. Sadly this database is prone to downtime, if you get 0 games it is probably down for maintenance. Sjakkalle 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.e3

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request

message: Doesn't d4 win more than e4?  That's pretty significant, seeing as e4 is commonly perceived as the most popular opening. My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winnability (if that's a word) 

message: "The Queen's Gambit is divided into two major categories based on Black's response: The Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA) and the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD)"
This is not true, since (as discussed below) the QGD is specifically the ...e6 category, so the Queen's Gambit is divided into ten categories (those listed, plus "other" for all other legal 2nd moves). It's debatable precisely which ones are "major". I don't have any statistics to hand, but surely the Slav is at least as important as the QGA? 2.25.120.18 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're definitely right about the importance of the Slav.  In terms of practical play both the Slav and the Orthodox line (commonly called just the QGD) are more important than the QGA.  (Considered theoretically rather than practically this probably isn't true, as if Black was assured to get good chances by accepting there might not be as great a need to find good ways to decline.)  The definition of the QGD has been discussed on Talk:Queen's Gambit Declined.  My view there is that it is reasonable to use the expansive definition of QGD for simple classification purposes, but I understand that often (maybe most often) the narrower definition is used.  The expansive definition reported in the article is used by reliable sources, so unless with think those uses are insignificant (undue weight, and that might be the case here) it should stay in the article.  If we make a change it wouldn't make sense to say that the QG is divided into 10 or 11 major categories, so the statement would need to be reworded significantly or be removed.  It may be that the wording here could be improved without complete replacement, the QGD article says "In its broadest sense, the Queen's Gambit Declined is any variation of the Queen's Gambit in which Black declines to capture White's pawn on c4. Variations other than the Orthodox Line have their own names and are usually treated separately."   When I was growing up the ...e6 lines were called the Orthodox Defense, but today it's probably a lot more common to simply call them the QGD.  Quale (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicking 

message: The text lists the rare  2...g6 as Alekhine's Defense. I can find no reference to this on the web. In my database of 4,300,954 games using ChessDB, there's one game by Alekhine with this. (Stahlberg vs Alekhine, 1037) which ended in a draw. In fact, there are only 60 games in total, which is 0.00139504% of the database. In other words, it is very rare, and not noteworthy at all. 
Has someone just looked in a database, seen Alekhine was the highest rated player to play it, then decided to call it his Defense? That does not seem a logical thing to do, and there are no references given.
Unless someone can come up with some better evidence, I will remove the name 86.129.194.86 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it in Benjamin's book Unorthodox Openings. He labelled it "Queen's Gambit Declined: Alekhine Idea". Will add the ref. --IHTS (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 2...g6 really Alekhine's Defense? I think its dubious to call it that.