Talk:Danvers Opening

message: Can we add a section about the popular blunder 2. g6?? which leads to 3. Qxe5+, winning the rook.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. g6?? 

message: (12-02-06) additional links : http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/files/more_qh5_analysis.htm, http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1114752346.shtml
*The Talking Drum featuring Bernard Parham
I'm not sure this link belongs in this article. Maybe it should go in an article on the Matrix system or on Bernard Parham? --Malathion 03:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, in that the article is not primarily about the Parham Attack as such -- so, particularly since there's no Wikipedia article on Parham, I moved the link to the article up into the text so that it is a link from "Bernard Parham." Hope that helps. Krakatoa 08:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you edited your comment after I posted mine, I removed it. ⟳ausa کui × 09:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be happy if he would log on to FICS sometime and play vs Shredder in this line. Shredder thinks 5...0-0 is a big mistake, because 5...d5 leaves black with a big advantage. ⟳ausa کui × 03:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: This move is something I've been looking at for a while. It's true, the Bishop is put on a weakish square, but it means that the Q can go to e7 without blocking it and that the N can go to f6 with tempo. For example: 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Bd6!? 3. Bc4 Qe7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Qh4 Bc5 6. Qg3 d6 7. Qxg7? Rg8 8. Qh6 Bxf2+! 9. Kf1 Rg6 0-1  24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we have a source for Bd6 it would be a problem of no original research. I setup the board and looked at this it doesn't seem a very good idea. After Bd6 the bishop has to move again later at the cost of a tempo. In the line given Qg3 is an illogical waste of move having moved the queen to h4 on the previous move. 5. Qg5 would seem a more consistent move when 5...Nxe4 is met with Qxg7 with advantage to white. 5...O-O and White can play 6. d3, 6. O-O or 6. Nc3 when Black can't break in the center until the Bishop is moved from d6.  SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. 5. Qg5, Bxf2+. But really, why is any of this discussion here? No one cares what some random person has been "looking at for quite a while"; this is an encyclopedia, not an analysis page. -- 98.108.220.157 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The annoying thing is, no one in history has ever taken a serious look at this move. It can't be as bad as 2...Nf6 can it? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar ideas have caught on in other openings in recent years, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6!?, which GM Larry Kaufman recommends in his excellent book The Chess Advantage in Black and White. Black will disentangle with ...0-0, ...Re8, ...Bf8, and ...d6; in some lines he leaves the bishop at d6 and plays ...b6 and ...Bb7. There is also 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bd6!?, a fashionable move that according to IM Richard Palliser had as of 2006 scored 60% for Black. Beating Unusual Chess Openings, p. 136. It was introduced in Suhle-Adolf Anderssen, Breslau 1859. There is also a line against the Evans Gambit called the "Stoneware Defense" after the Boston players (first name?) Stone and Preston Ware. See T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill, The Italian Game, p. 61. Some dude named Harry Nelson Pillsbury played it against both Emanuel Schiffers and Henry Bird at Hastings 1895, beating both with ease. See Horace Cheshire, The Hastings Tournament 1895, pp. 132-33, 229-30. A good thing, too, since Pillsbury only won the tournament by half a point (Pillsbury 16.5, Chigorin 16, Lasker 15.5, etc.). So just as we shouldn't be too dismissive of 2.Qh5, we shouldn't be too dismissive of 2...Bd6. But yes, until some notable player plays it or at least advocates it it would be OR, as SunCreator said. Krakatoa (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2. Bd6!? 

message: The article includes this: "Hikaru Nakamura, the 17-year-old GM and U.S. champion, played it as White against 28-year-old Indian GM Krishnan Sasikiran at the May 2005 Sigeman Tournament in Copenhagen/Malmö, Denmark." (Emphasis added.) Apparently an anon put in the ages, someone deleted them, and now the anon reverted the change, saying this should be taken to talk before being re-reverted. Fine. The players' ages are irrelevant and should be deleted. If I see that such-and-such player has played a move and want to know the significance of that, what is relevant is how strong the player is. That is taken care of here by the information that both these players are GMs, and that Nakamura is the U.S. champion. If I want to know more about either player, I can click on the wiki-link for him. What their respective ages are is not important. If we habitually inserted players' ages, articles would become much longer, to no benefit. "The 43-year-old xxxx successfully essayed such-and-such against the 25-year-old yyyy.", etc., etc. Who cares?  The ages should be taken out. Krakatoa (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Krakatoa; the players' ages are irrelevant here.  If we had a WP:RS reliable source commenting on the significance of their ages in this context inclusion would be appropriate, otherwise it is WP:UNDO undo weight.  Presumably we're supposed to draw some inference based on their ages, but it is unstated and the point is unclear. Quale (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  In some situations it would be notable to mention Nakamura's age (i.e. being a minor), but not significant here.  And the other one is completely irrevelant.  Consensus - I'll delete them.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the anon who originally put in Sasikiran's age. The reason I inserted it was that the article originally included Nakamura's age, but not Sasikiran's. There seemed to be no reason to include the age of one but not the other, but rather than remove Nakamura's age completely, which would be a better, but more difficult change to defend, I inserted Sasikiran's age in order to to at least make the article consistent for both players. What actually was deleted (and then reverted by myself, as Krakatoa mentions) was Sasikiran's but not Nakamura's age, rather than, as Krakatoa seems to have mistakenly assumed, both ages.  Of course, the removal of both ages is the best possible outcome, as the ages of the players are irrelevent to the article. So I think Krakatoa may have misinterpereted my edit back in 2009, but the eventual result was the right one anyway. 203.24.97.9 (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players' ages are irrelevant and should be deleted 

message: I believe this is original research (and wrong original research at that). Anonywiki (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No source is given, not even for the supposed name "Kiddie Countergambit".  Since the rest of the article is fairly reasonably sourced, I agree with you and think the entire section can be removed.  The same with "Mellon Gambit".  So-called "Named variations" should be sourced or removed.  Quale (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Uncomfortable contortions"?

message: "Mellon Gambit" is from Schiller's "Gambit Chess Openings" tome.  It's not a particularly good line for either player, but anyway the name is published there.  The "Kiddie Countergambit" isn't covered in that work.  That is the name commonly used for 2... Nf6, though.  Do we have to find someone who uses it in a book before that information goes into an encyclopedia?  First hand knowledge of common conventions isn't enough?  The name is used in a lot of web pages, but not all web pages are reliable.  
I don't see why the information that 2. Nf6 is Shredder's first choice was removed.  Houdini likes the move too, though it likes other moves better.  Engines are famously critical of gambits so when an engine rates a gambit highly that is important information about that gambit.  Write the chess engine itself as the source if it's important for you to have the primary source written up right.  What's there now, "speculative," suggests the gambit is not very good, when it's actual one of Black's best options in the position.  
Nakamura's age when he liked 2. Qh5 does seem relevant as his endorsement can be attributed to his youth.  I don't get the removal of a lot of good information from these pages.  
76.210.63.22 (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Good information gone

message: If MCO 16th edition, I guess it is to be released sometime after December, contains entry "Parham Attack", um, it seems that would trump the Schiller source. (Big "if", I heard it on a blog, and don't entirely discount it, even though I don't know how the blogger could obtain that pre-print info.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''MCO'' 16 

message: ^ Hans Ree, Perils of the Sea. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved on 2009-02-06.
The link to "Perils of the Sea" is dead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.137.78 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: Any alternative names for this opening need to be sourced, preferably from a reputable chess publication, not from someone's blog. To be honest I'm in favour of deleting this article. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: The name "Danvers Opening" can be sourced from the American Chess Bulletin as reported by Edward Winter. This strikes me as a far more credible source than anything by Schiller or Cardoza Publishing. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-opening the debate about the name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Danvers Opening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928192919/http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/3/026400-6803-160.html to http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/3/026400-6803-160.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Danvers Opening. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910060728/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt to http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans48.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As content creator, I object to the move of the article ‘Bernard Parham’ to draftspace. Unfortunately, I have been unable to figure how to move this article back to mainspace. Perhaps someone can help me.
Nevertheless, I have performed exact Google searches for the following phrases. Hits are in parentheses: 1) Parham Attack/Parham opening (3,710) 2) Wayward Queen Attack/Opening (3,638) 3) Danvers Attack/Opening (2,976) 4) Patzer Opening (1,382)
Calling this chess opening the 'Danvers Opening' is sub-optimal, especially in view of the fact that the overwhelming majority of living chess players refer to this opening as the ‘Parham Attack’. I find it curious that the contribution of National Master, Bernard Parham, who is Black, have been minimized. The other terms are archaic, pretentious, quirky and bizarre and appear primarily in the literature prior to the year 1900.
I am afraid Crisco 1492, et al. have missed the point regarding Bernard Parham’s notability. Nobody claimed that the sequence of moves 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 had never been played before. Given enough time, a monkey typing at a keyboard, would reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. The point is that Bernard Parham took an obscure, discredited opening and played it during his entire chess career against Master level opposition, with success. The Parham Attack has now been played at Grandmaster level, by Hikaru Nakamura, and has been discussed in the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) newspaper as a potentially requiring a 'grand rethink" of chess.
Parham’s maximum USCF rating was over 2300, which is International Master level, and he did this by playing the Parham Attack exclusively as White. Parham was also awarded the National Master title in 2002 by USCF. By the way, nobody in the world calls this opening the Danvers Opening. It is referred to, in over two hundred counties, as the Parham Attack. As content creator, it is my considered judgment that this entry is well referenced, and marking it as draft is also a mistake. This article should be restored as a wikipedia entry in its original format. Moreover, the Wikipedia entry ‘Danvers Opening’ should be renamed/redirected to the new entry ‘Parham Attack’.
From content creator George.kvakovszky Monday March 9, 2022  — Preceding unsigned comment added by George.kvakovszky (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Parham Attack" is an internet name. Most of the google hits are to forums and self-published sites. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Names