Category talk:Chess openings

message: Can I suggest that some kind of animated graphical representation of the openings is provided? A simple flash representation of most of these openings should only take a few kb. Perhaps someone suitably skilled in Flash stuff could put forwards a common style to be adopted? (Put the template on your talk page or something). Emyr42 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding Chess Openings

message: We should establish a capitalization guideline. I've noticed that words like Gambit in names of openings are always capitalized, but sometimes Opening is not. What should be the standard? Then we can rename any page that doesn't conform to the agreed style.--Sonjaaa 20:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
I think names of openings, defenses, variations, gambits, etc. should be capitalized, e.g. Bird's Opening, Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation, King's Gambit.  But the generic word should be lower case as in the previous sentence.  That seems to be by far the most common usaege, and <soapbox> I think it's also proper English.  The two words "Sicilian Defense" form a proper noun together.  You would not capitalize both words in the example "Russian players", since "players" is a common noun modified by the proper adjective "Russian" </soapbox>.  So go for it, Sonjaaa! Sim man 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalistation 

message: While I do not believe deleting these opening articles is the way to go, there could certainly be some cleanup - how about merging and redirecting some of the stub articles on irregular openings to a single Irregular Chess openings article?  Should I be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it?
Articles I have merged;
2...Bf5 Defence & Baltic Defense
Barnes Opening & Gedult's Opening
I've also redirected Épine Dorsale to Italian Game. 
Articles I suggest could be merged into the above article.  Note: I have not suggested openings that arise from another (i.e. Blackburne Shilling Gambit which if anything would be merged into Italian Game).
#Alapin's Opening
#Amar Opening
#Anderssen's Opening
#Balogh Defense
#Barnes Opening
#Clemenz Opening
#Desprez Opening
#Dunst Opening
#Durkin Opening
#Englund Gambit
#Fred Defence
#Grob's Attack (might be notable enough to have its own page?)
#Kangaroo Defense
#Napoleon Opening
#Parham Attack
#Polish Defense
#Portuguese Opening
#Saragossa Opening
#Sokolsky Opening
#St. George Defense
#Ware Opening
Comments welcome.
::First off, I suggest moving this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess so that the Chess Project can be more properly aware of the situation, and maybe you can get some action done.  This is just too out of the way a place to discuss it.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyond that, the biggest problem I have with your proposal is that it has no reasoning behind it, and that you haven't even looked at the real problem behind the articles, namely that so many of them are nothing but algebraic notations of chess openings, with at best a brief mention of some person playing it.  I have yet to be convinced of the encyclopedic value of that.  Especially since there so many chess openings with names and codes.  There's currently 196 odd articles in this category.  Do we want that to grow even further?  FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this proposal would remove 21 of those 196 to begin with!  After that, I suggest merging a lot of the articles based on the same openings into the articles for that particular opening.  That will remove an enormous amount.  The reasoning, btw, is that the irregular openings are very rarely played in serious chess and therefore probably don't need their own articles. EliminatorJR Talk 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I oppose merging any of the listed openings.  Many of them are not subvariations of any other opening, and so deserve an individual article on that basis alone.  As for the others, I don't see any advantage in merging them at all. There are opening articles that should be merged (or rather probably should never have been created), but these aren't them.  24.177.112.146 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps you might wish to suggest some candidates for merger?  It's all well and good to say "but there are other pages" but it's not as helpful as actually identifying some of them.  FrozenPurpleCube 07:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  You're going to disagree with this, but opening articles that I think belong as stand alone articles include 1) every first move for White (20 openings) and 2) all the named openings at the level where they are considered individual openings in the chess literature.   I think chess opening coverage should be developed from the top down, starting with Chess opening (in pretty good shape), through all 20 opening moves, through all named openings normally treated independently in the chess literature.  This means that we'd start with chess opening and proceed to Sicilian Defence, one of the pillars of chess opening praxis.  Next, some of the most important variations like the Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation can get pages when they no longer fit well in the main opening article.  This is as far as I think it should usually go, and I don't think that the chess opening coverage Wikipedia has at present should require many articles at the subvariation level, as Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O, etc.  This in fact has been the general practice, although some months ago many articles at the subvariation (and subsub- and subsubsubvariation) level were added as a means to create many external links to a particular chess website.    You have already nominated one of these pages on AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O, an action that I think is reasonable.  After a quick scan through the chess opening category, these are the articles that I think probably should be merged.  (It was a quick look, so I may have made some mistakes.)
* Alekhine's Defense 3.d4
* Alekhine's defense, Modern variation
* Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4
* Benko Gambit, 7.e4
* Catalan, Open, Classical line
* English Opening, Hedgehog Defense
* English Opening, Symmetrical, Main line with d4
* French, Winawer, Advance Variation
* Grünfeld 4.Bf4
* Grünfeld gambit
* Grünfeld, exchange variation
* KGA, Allagier & Kiesertisky Gambits
* King's Indian, Sämisch, 5...O-O
* Pirc, Austrian attack
* Pirc, Classical (Two knights) system
* Polugaevsky Variation
* QGD; 3...Nf6
* QGD; Slav, 4.Nc3
* Queen's Indian, 4.g3
* Ruy Lopez, 5.O-O
* Ruy Lopez, Closed Defense
* Ruy Lopez, Closed, 9.h3
* Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O
* Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 12.h4
* Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O
* Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4
* Sicilian, Najdorf, 7...Be7 Main line
* Sicilian, Sozin, 7.Be3
* Tal Gambit
24.177.112.146 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea

message: It looks like there is an inconsistency in how the various defenses in this category are spelled.  I think "defense" is more standard, and is used elsewhere in Wikipedia.  Should these pages be standardized? Madbehemoth 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense vs. Defence

message: There's an obvious lack of subcategorization here. Seems a poor choice. Most chess opening books do lots of categorization. – ishwar  (speak) 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: subcats