Talk:Scotch Game

message: Isn't an animated gif better then this chess diagram? Vadimka, 21:57 (CET), 20.09.06.
:No, definitely not. Too distracting, and being able to look at the branching position is important for the reader trying to follow through the variations discussed. 84.69.195.70 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated gif

message: The article was rated as being of "High" importance. I've re-rated it as "Mid" importance. I don't think the Scotch is nearly as commonly played (and thus important) as its competitors the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, and Two Knights Defense. Although Kasparov did play it in a few World Championship games against Karpov, Short, and Viswanathan Anand some years ago, it has not caught on. Note also that Fischer played Alekhine's Defense twice against Spassky in their 1972 match, and that's just rated Mid-Importance, and Spassky played the Hippopotamus Defense twice against Petrosian in their 1966 match, and that's rated Low-Importance. Thus, merely being played a few times at world championship level can't be enough to merit a "High". Despite the now-retired Kasparov's occasional advocacy of the Scotch (much like Fischer's occasional advocacy of Alekhine's), I would classify it the same as Alekhine's: an offbeat opening that is occasionally, but not often, seen in high-level games, meriting "Mid" importance. Krakatoa (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-rating article as Mid importance

message: I am removing the line mentioning Herman Göring as a "first World War Ace".  Göring was more famous as a Nazi leader and I think he is irrelevant to a chess article, whether or not he was related to a chess player.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcmullin (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is relevant to this article either. Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herman Göring 

message: Isnt 6... d5 the proper way to play, instead of 6... d6?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoreb (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Göring gambit 

message: I don't know about others, but on my computer screen the section "Main variations" is too crowded because of the diagrams and the text squashed like sardines in a can. Could the readability there be improved? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried something (how is now?). Curious: can you tell your screen's dimension? (Mine is 1280 x 1024.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 1024×600. I have now placed the diagrams into the sections that they relate to, which makes more sense to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I understand the complaint.  Previously the diagrams were in a row, three abreast, with the variations listed below.  I didn't see anything crowed or squashed together.  Now I think it is worse, as the diagrams often won't be in the sections  they pertain to.  This is especially noticeable on wide screens (I often use 1920x1200), although you could reasonably suggest that a full-screen browser window at high resolutions makes line lengths too long in general and isn't ideal for reading.  The original page arrangement had the diagrams in a table which forced three columns, but the stacking technique I tried above should adapt to the screen width.  At about 680 pixels wide and below, the diagrams should be in three rows.  From 680 to about 920 there should be two rows, and the first row should have two diagrams.  Above 920 all three diagrams should be in the first row.  I think that older versions of IE didn't flow the the diagrams correctly and would always have the three diagrams in a single row using scroll bars if necessary, but modern versions of IE should be OK.  You can try this by resizing your browser to see if the diagrams flow.  Another example of this is Slav Defense.  The sections there are very short so the diagrams would not fit well floated in the sections for any but the narrowest of screens.  I think the diagrams together form a nice visual key to distinguish the variations (a gallery of sorts), and breaking them up across the article dilutes this.  Quale (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Slav Defense page is different because the seven grouped diagrams there are not accompanied by any text to their left or right side. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Toccata I don't understand your last, since after the change I made above, the text appeard first, followed by a row of diagrams w/o any text to either side. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Just noticed at the main chess article, Chess#Movement, rows of 3 diags are also used to explain chess moves, w/ text to the left. Does it create a "squished" presentation on your screen there also? (Perhaps the org w/ be vertical there then instead of text to one side!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no problems there, since the text is found above and below the diagrams. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams 

message: It violates all sorts of opening principles and White has zero advantage after 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 (not an exclam worthy move) Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5. White has only the queen "developed" and he'll have to move it again soon. If he wastes any more time, as in the well known Meek-Morphy game, he'll be in trouble. Unsurprisingly the stats from human games after 9.Qxc5 are in Black's favour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 5.Ng5 is a pretty obscure line, does it even warrant inclusion? --IHTS (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's turned up in GM games recently, presumably White just wants to get through the opening without playing for advantage. It's not as bad as Pachman (and I) thought it was. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  5.Ng5?! in the Scotch Gambit is weak 

message: I don't see enough sources dealing with this independently, maybe this makes more sense to have as a section to the Scotch Game article (since this is a variation of that) ? Thoughts welcomed!! Sohom (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Haxo Gambit doesn't merit a separate article (nor does Bxf7+ merit 2 exclams). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no reliable sources for the name, AfD is appropriate. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Standard_Chess_Openings - Eric Schiller and another Russian title besides a bunch of youtube videos (which I assume are unreliable), so not complete source free but nothing substantial and definitely nothing that does not discuss it in the context of the Scotch Game. Sohom (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric Schiller is a poorly regarded author with a tendency to invent unnecessary opening names not used by any of the standard reference books. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

text: I guess we should do this by the book. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haxo Gambit MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Haxo Gambit]] into [[Scotch Game]]