Talk:Grünfeld Defence

message: It seems to me this page contains unsourced content from several other pages.  I am therefore tagging the parts I consider of the most concern. However, this won't address the other problems I see with this page, such as the language and the focus which I consider overly concerned with listing variants without addressing their importance.  Only the Exchange variant is close to that.  FrozenPurpleCube 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and "In Recent years" should be given specific dates instead.  FrozenPurpleCube 08:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags you added seem reasonable to me.  I expect that someone will add references for those statements soon.  It is likely that the four general references already listed in the article will suffice as references for most or maybe even all of the statements you tagged.  You are also quite correct that "In recent years" is lousy language for an encyclopedia, so that should be fixed.  I don't find any merit in your other arguments (concern over language, focus, and importance), but we've been through that several times before. Quale 08:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced content 

message: The variation is not often met in top-flight play today, its usage having declined significantly since its heyday in the 1930s.
I don't think that this is true. There are actually quite a few super grandmasters, who use this variation, e.g. Kramnik, Wang Yue  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.87.37 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bf4 

message: What alternatives to Nxc3 are playable? 91.105.28.110 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange variation 

message: Why is this here? Maybe move to the end as it is it breaks up the flow of the article.
Or be a mention in the opening paragraph.  
But, to me seems like it is just here because of the name but is a different line altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgorpster (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: it should be split  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Neo-Grünfeld Defence 

message: 4. Bg5 is a major variation and ought to be covered. Chessmasterguy (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  4.Bg5 

message: At present (2016 Dec. 24), the History section states:  "Cochrane published a book reporting his games with Moheshchunder and other Indians in 1864."  
I haven't been able to find such a book.  However, in 1871, someone transcribed Cochrane's notes for a book that he intended to publish under the title "Loose Indian Chess Leaves".  That transcript is available on the Internet in 4 volumes from the Cleveland (Ohio) public library:  http://cplorg.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4014coll20/id/285
Would anyone object to my changing "1864" to "1871" and providing a link to this Web site?
VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cochrane's "book" of 1864 ? 

message: Under Neo-Grünfeld-Defence it is said "[...] typical move orders are 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 d5 or, more commonly, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 [...]". Please note that both variants given are exactly the same. The first variation is likely meant to be an alternative move order, i.e. 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 d5. Idna (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change, although I must say I have no idea which move order is more common (it could equally be 1.c4 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. g3 d5, for example). If anyone wants to check that, please go ahead. Banedon (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably mistake 

message: In the History section, Gata Kamsky is listed as an "active, notable" player. I was thinking about putting Shakryiar Mameydyarov in his place. GrandmasterCheckmate (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Gata Kamsky still active?