Talk:Chess opening/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Talk was getting pretty long and I hope it will get even longer, so I separated it into sections. I hope this is an improvement. Feel free to revert if it is worse. --Quale 02:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Organization of the article

Separate page for each opening

I think it would be better to break up this page into each opening... a separate page for Queen's Gambit, etc.--Sonjaaa 07:33, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's good to have an overview of openings here, but of course, there's no reason why individual openings (and eventually even specific variations) can't have a page of their own; some of them already do (Ruy Lopez is one example). --Camembert

Overhaul classification of chess openings section

I really think that the entire chess openings section could do with an overhaul. It contains articles of widely varying quality and correctness that are unevenly dispersed (e.g. there is no page for the Giuoco Piano, or the Reti, and in the main page I even saw somebody mark the Evans Gambit with a ?!. The King's Gambit page was full of lies; I gave it a quick once over but it is still very bad.) The job is too big for me to do alone; perhaps if there are enough chess players here we could divvy up the work, everybody writing the article about his favorite opening systems with some sort of standardization? (This post was added by 204.52.215.102)

I agree with 204.52.215.102. The list and descriptions of the opening should be consolidated. Right now it is a mess of descriptions and diagrams of different formats. Some have "main article:..." above the diagram, some have "see article ..." embedded in the description. Some important openings are missing entirely from this list (e.g. the Benoni Defense). This article served its purpose well when it was created, but now many of the openings have received individual articles and as this page has expanded we have lost uniformity. I would like to suggest that we do the following, but I think some input is in order before it is carried out:

  1. Create an individual article on the Queen's Indian Defense, the last opening here missing an individual article. DONE!, but I see we are actually still missing one; the Modern Defense. DONE BY Neilc!
  2. Change all redirects of individual openings from this page to the proper opening article. DONE!
  3. Remove all diagrams and descriptions of the openings from this page, merge any information which might be lost into the appropriate individual opening article. DONE mostly by Neilc!
  4. Instead, on this page we put a list of openings with a link to each individual article, along with the moves which define it. PRETTY MUCH COMLETED BY Quale! well done!

Example: White opens with 1.e4

Sjakkalle 12:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible plan to me. I agree the existing page needs a lot of cleanup, and the right direction for the future is to move most of the information into individual pages for each opening. Neilc 23:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modern Defense is now a separate page, and the redirect to Chess openings has been removed. I wasn't sure if we should just make Modern redirect to Pirc Defense, or if there's any point in having a separate page... Neilc 03:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Modern is a different opening and deserved an individual place. Thanks Neilc for your effort. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved most of the descriptions of individual openings off this page, and merged any lost content into the appropriate articles for the individual openings themselves. A few openings still need doing (Pirc, Modern, some of the Indians). Other ideas for improvement:

  • Divide responses to 1.e4 into symmetrical (1. ... e5) and asymmetrical
  • Reorder openings based on some assessment of their popularity
  • Link more openings from this page; I linked a few that were missing (Bird's, Reti, Philidor's), but there are probably more.
  • Make the pages describing individual openings more consistent with eachother. For example, different articles use different styles for presenting diagrams of positions — we should decide on one style and use it consistently.
Neilc 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have continued the good work of Neilc, I have added the Benoni Defense, Benko Gambit, Grob's Attack and others. There are probably still more openings to be sorted and some are in need of an article. I will list some of them as red-links so that people can create articles if they wish. As for sorting I suggest sorting them like the Oxford Companion to Chess would, that is the moves are sorted alphabetically, first by arrival square then by piece name (pawns come frst though). Examples:

  • c5 is before c6.
  • f3 is before Bf3 is before Kf3 is before Nf3 is before Qf3 is before Rf3.
  • Nc5 is before Nc6.
  • 0-0 and 0-0-0 come last.

Neilc is right that different articles use different formats, and it would be nice to get some uniformity there, but having different formats in different articles is less ugly than having different formats in the same article. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This reorganization is good. I think it would be better to emphasize the moves rather than the names. If the reader already knows the name of the opening, she wouldn't need this list, so I am changing

to

I think it would also be a good idea to split up the openings into more than 3 categories. What do you think about using the 5 categories used by MCO?

  1. Double King Pawn Openings (Open Games)
  2. Single King Pawn Openings (Semi-Open Games)
  3. Double Queen Pawn Openings (Closed Games)
  4. Indian Openings
  5. Flank Openings

--Quale 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other openings worth mentioning?

I've created this section so that we can keep a list of other openings we might want to mention in the article.

Unusual Queen's Pawn Openings

  • 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 Marshall Defense (added)
This is said to be unsound, but it might deserve a mention. Also, if we have the refutation, it should probably get its own short article. Marshall is said to have abandoned this opening after losing to Alekhine with it at Baden-Baden in 1925, although it looks like he got out of the opening OK and only lost later. Also, in that game used a different move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5. I don't know if that's the way Marshall usually played it. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 Symmetrical Defense (added)
This is an unusual line in the QGD. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Owen's Defense (added)

This opening has no name. 1. e4...b6

does anyone know this? Have you ever played an opening like this? 1. e4...b6 2. d4...Bb7 3. Bd3...e6 4. c4...f5 5. exf5...Bg2 6. Qh5...g6 7. fxg6...Bg7 8. gxh7+...Kf8 9. hxg8/Q+...Kxg8 Black is winning!!!!!!!!!!

1.e4 b6 is sometimes called the Owen Defence (or Owen's Defence) after John Owen, the 19th century English player, who did pretty well with it. --Camembert
Yes, but White should deviate with 7.Qf5! or 8.Nf3!, after which he should win. Double sharp (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Réti Opening (added)

A new section in 2.3 for the Reti Opening (1.Nf3) should be added.--Fermatprime 20:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to write it, but it should probably be made clear that not every game starting 1.Nf3 ends up as a Réti. --Camembert

Colle System (added)

It's now in the list of variations, but it needs a short description in the prose and also someone to actually create Colle System. Quale 06:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

1.d4 Nc6

Does this deserve mention? I'm not certain what it's called. The Oxford Companion to Chess says Nimzowitsch Queen's Pawn Defence, which isn't a very attractive name. A widely distributed file of ECO codes calls it Lundin (Kevitz-Mikenas) Defense. MCO-14, NCO and BCO-2 all give some variations but don't name them. Quale 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other stuff

Ponziani question

Hey, I could use some help. A recent addition made to the open games section was

  • 1.e4 e5 2.c3 Ponziani's Opening

Is this really the Ponziani? I think it's just an unclassified King's Pawn Game. My references give 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 as the Ponziani (this line is actually played occasionally even today), so this is what I had originally put in the article. Now we have two entries for Ponziani's Opening. After 1.e4 e5 2.c3 then both 2...d5 and 2...Nf6 are good for Black. --Quale 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, a google check said that 1.e4 e5 2.c3 is called the Lopez Opening, I will correct that now. Sjakkalle 08:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Oxford Companion calls this the "Centre Pawn Opening" (they obviously weren't feeling very inspired that day). Lots of good work been done on these articles recently, by the way - congrats to all concerned. --Camembert

The Ponziani opening is 1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. c3. I consider it worth mentioning. Falphin 18:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It was already there, so you added a dupe :-). Camembert cleaned it up, so it's all good. Quale 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Classification of the Catalan

How should we classify the Catalan?

I temporarily put it in the Closed Games, but I should have payed closer attention because it's already in Indian Openings so I removed it from Closed. I'll add some text discussing it in the Indian Openings section. Quale 05:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

good job!

Thanks for all who have written this article. This is a job well-done. I encourage you all to add some multimedia and you'll be well on the way toward featuring it. DanKeshet 19:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Counter-Gambit" vs "Counter Gambit" vs "Countergambit"

Which spelling do we prefer? I've seen all three in print.

  • Counter-Gambit Perhaps the most common, but I hate to needlessly hyphenate. As words are used more often we tend to drop the hyphens. The simple word "today" was once "to-day". Used by The Oxford Companion to Chess.
  • Counter Gambit Used by Reuben Fine. I like this better than Counter-Gambit.
  • Countergambit Seems to be a newer spelling, MCO 14 uses it. It follows the pattern found in "Counterattack", which I believe is always a single unhyphenated word. I think I like this best.

We can create redirects as needed if we use the term in a title. Quale 06:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "countergambit" (one word) is the modern way to write it. "Cannot" used to be "can not," too. Krakatoa 21:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Other responses to 1.d4

I will edit those(unless someone else does) when I have time to. I plan to do them all. Watch out for my spelling. Falphin 21:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that User:12.220.47.145 has created this section. I agree that putting the Dutch Defense and the Old Benoni under closed games is awkward (the Leningrad Dutch with ...g6 doesn't remotely resemble a Queen's Gambit), even though MCO uses this classification. I have cleaned up and trimmed the section somewhat, for instance, I felt that devoting so many words to the Englund in this article was not really needed, it's better reserved for the Englund Gambit article. "Kangaroo Defense" was certainly an "exotic" name I've never heard before, but there are google hits on it. I would have preferred "Keres Defense", but unless there are serious objections we can let the article stay at that name. I thought it was a rather common way to play, even if most games opening 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ quickly transpose to the Bogo-Indian or Nimzo-Indian. Sjakkalle 08:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Falphin are you the same one as 12.220.47.145? Sjakkalle 08:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Depends, if I forget to log in it is, but itsn't only used by me. The Kangaroo Defense is rare but I've never heard anyone call it the Keres Defense. Falphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion from this section that Kasparov has occasionally played the Polish defence (1.d4 b5); there are no such games in the Chessbase Mega Database 2004. If anybody has another source with games where Kasparov played this, then perhaps it can go back in. --Camembert 13:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I can prove that, but I don't think it is that importantFalphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made articles on the Wade defense and Franco-Sicilian defense but I'm having trouble finding info on the Polish defense and what is considered the Polish defense. I've seen three different variations. I always assumed it was just 1. d4 b5. Anyone know? Falphin 19:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Wade Defense actually had an article already, the Rat Defense, but since your article is better, I will convert the Rat Defense to a redirect to your new article. Sjakkalle 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

New article

I plan to write an article on the Halloween Gambit. But I'm not for sure if that is what it's called. 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Anyone know, other wise I will just write it under the above name.(I won't write it until Monday). Falphin 19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is also called the Müller-Schulze Gambit. Acccording to The Halloween-Attack in the Four Knight Game, the Halloween name comes from the German magazine, Randspringer. The Halloween Gambit currently is mentioned in the Four Knights Game and Halloween Gambit is just a redirect. If there's a more material than would comfortably fit in the Four Knights article you can replace the redirect with an article. We should then put a link in the Four Knights Game to the new article. Quale 21:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

At present the Halloween Gambit is a mentioned in the Four Knights Game, so you may find a little information in that article. Otherwise you may want to check out Tim Krabbé's article [1]. Sjakkalle 06:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed Halloween Attack from Open Games

I removed the Halloween Attack listing from Open Games section. It's just a variation of the Four Knights Game which is already on the list. I think this main article should be a survey, and we shouldn't try to list every variation of every opening here. Articles on individual openings can go into greater depth. Quale 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Reti Opening/King's Indian Attack/Flank Openings

btw, this should be item 10, not 9.1. I don't know how to do that.

[Use two = signs to introduce a top-level section heading, and three for a subsection. I fixed it. Quale 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)]

I edited the descriptions of the Reti and KIA. Prior to my edit, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 was described as the "Reti Opening" and 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 as a "King's Indian Attack." Both of these are wrong. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 could be a Reti (it could also transpose to a QGD, Slav, or QGA in short order), but to imply that a Reti has to start with that sequence is wrong. I changed "Reti Opening" to just 1.Nf3 (which is how the article dedicated to that opening describes it). It's true, as Camembert noted above, that not all games starting 1.Nf3 end up as true Retis, but that's true of other openings (not all 1.c4 games end up as true Englishes, many 1.Nc3 games transpose to some other opening, etc.). It seems to me that a true Reti almost has to have one or both bishops fianchettoed, so I think I will add that.

As for the KIA, 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 is not yet a KIA, and may never be -- White has to play d3, Nbd2 and e4. I think the KIA usually arises from 1.e4, which is how I've described it, e.g. 1.e4 e6 (or 1...c6, 1...c5, etc.) 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 followed by Ngf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 etc. I moved it under "Semi-Open Games" rather than the list of move one choices. It's not perfectly situated there, either, since one can certainly play it in 1.e4 e5 games, although one rarely sees that, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 2.d3. Krakatoa 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

These are difficult classification questions. I'm uncertain about the KIA. It is often reached from 1.e4, but yet somehow it seems to fit better in the Flank openings. We have an odd difficulty with Reti/KIA/Barcza System being pretty closely related, but maybe ending up in different categories. I'm not really sure what to suggest. The way it was set up originally was definitely a compromise, and there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. Quale 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree there's no perfect solution. Note also that "Flank Openings" is not too accurate. 1.e3 and 1.d3 certainly are not flank openings (at least not yet), and I'm not sure 1.Nc3 is, either (white usually follows up with d4 and/or e4, although of course 1.Nc3 d5 2.Nf3 is also possible -- although even there, White will usually move a center pawn at his next opportunity). This is sort of arbitrary, but one approach would be to classify as "Flank Openings," say, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.g3, 1.b3, 1.b4, 1.f4, King's Indian Attack, and Barcza System -- this amounts to "respectable and semi-respectable opening lines typified by play on one or both flanks." Then one could lump the rest of the openings into "Unusual First Moves." Krakatoa 00:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, maybe my idea isn't as arbitrary as I claimed it was. The lines I classified as "Flank Openings" are, I think, identical or close to what Keene called "Flank Openings" in his old book with that title. 1.g4, 1.f3, 1.Nh3, 1.a4 and such are geometrically "Flank Openings" but not respectable enough to deserve the term. Krakatoa 00:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The classification of the openings has already been reorganized a few times, and I like your suggestion. The most recent change added the "Other Black responses to 1.d4" section to include openings like the Benoni and the Dutch which were previously in the Closed Games category. (Although this has been done sometimes by others like MCO, it isn't a good fit which prompted the creation of the new section.) I say go ahead and create a new "Unusual first moves" section. (Wikipedia section titling policy says only the first word is capitalized unless it's a proper name. I'm not sure we did it right with "Open games", "Closed games", and "Indian systems" since these are sometimes used as proper names.) I may do it myself if I get to it before you do. Also, I see that we should revise the stuff I wrote in the intro to the "Classification of chess openings" section that says there are 7 common White first moves. It should be 8. I forgot about the Sokolsky, maybe because it's kind of awkward to explain in terms of development and center control, although I guess no worse than Larsen's Opening.) Quale 14:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The KIA is part of the Reti. Please check ECO lists (KIA is listed as A07, with move order 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3), we should defer to ECO in cases of uncertainty like this. Example: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07 Themindset 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Questions re: characterization of Réti and KIA
MCO-14 says the Réti originally (1920s) meant almost any game starting with Nf3 and c4. Today, MCO says Réti only refers to variations in which Black plays d5, White plays Nf3 and c4 and fianchettoes at least one bishop and does not play an early d4. MCO uses the key moves 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 for the Réti. At one time this article used that as well. MCO goes on to call 1.Nf3, 2.g3 the Barcza, saying that it often transposes into the Réti.
For the KIA, MCO uses 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.Nbd2, 7.e4 its characteristic moves, but gives examples of transpositions from 1.e4 from the French, Caro-Kann, and Sicilian. If we're going to include the KIA in the flank openings we might want to use this sequence ourselves and mention the very common transposition possibilities, or else it will look odd to have a 1.e4 opening in the flank section. BCO 2 doesn't require e4, d3, and Nbd2 for White but simply says the e4/d3 pawn center is common in the KIA. Quale 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I like MCO's definition of the KIA. I agree that giving MCO's move order as the main one makes sense, since as you say it looks funky having a 1.e4 opening plopped into the flank openings (although I suspect that is how the KIA is most often reached). I think you pretty much need d3 and e4 for a KIA (Nbd2 isn't totally obligatory; the N could go to c3 or even a3, since you see those knight placements sometimes in regular King's Indians). If W doesn't play d3 and e4 the game usually transposes to some other opening like a Reversed Benoni, Reversed Benko Gambit, or Reversed Gruenfeld, or stays a Reti (for example, if W plays g3 and c4, and Black plays dxc4). If Black plays ...d5 and an early ...Bf5 it's a London System.

Incidentally, the junk like 1.Nh3, 1.a4, 1.f3 and such could alternatively be called "Irregular Openings" rather than "unusual first moves." Krakatoa 17:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Knight's Tango"

This should be item 11, not 9.2. I don't know how to do that.

I changed "Knight's Tango" here to "Black Knights Tango" in text. I think it should also be changed in the article on that opening. "Black Knights Tango" is what Georgi Orlov, the popularizer of this opening, calls it in the two editions of his book, and that is what I have seen it called elsewhere. I have never seen "Knight's Tango" anywhere else, and it makes no sense. Just one knight ("Knight's") is tangoing? With whom/what? (Sorry -- forgot to put my handle. Krakatoa 23:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

To move a page, use the "move" button (which is next to the history button). As long as you are moving to a blank page or a page whose only history is creating a redirect to the orginal page, there should be no problem. Otherwise a temporary deletion is required to "make way", see Wikipedia:Requested moves. I agree that "Black" should be in the opening name, but there are three slightly different variations, and I'm a bit unsure which is best.
  1. Black Knights Tango
  2. Black Knight's Tango
  3. Black Knights' Tango
I'm leaning most towards the last title, since there are two knights I think the apostrophe should come after the s. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Krakatoa is right, "Black Knight's Tango" doesn't make sense and "Knight's Tango" worse, so it's option 1 or 3 or possibly "Knights' Tango". Orlov's book uses the third option, "Black Knights' Tango". I think Orlov's use takes precedence, so that's what we should use. If not for this, I would lean toward the first, apostrophe-free version if we could get away with it without doing too much damage to the English language. English rules on the apostrophe are really a hassle, so I am happy to write Two Knights Defense. As a final option, we could always simply call it the Mexican Defense and make the others redirects.... Quale 13:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I had thought Orlov called it Black Knights Tango, which is why I wrote it apostrophe-less, as I did. Maybe he did in the first edition, I don't know. But Quale is correct that Orlov (at least now, if perhaps not originally) uses the apostrophe: Black Knights' Tango. Happily, he is using it after the "s," where it belongs. So I agree with Sjakkalle and Quale that "Black Knights' Tango" is the way to go. Krakatoa 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a consensus, I went ahead and moved it. "Black Knights' Tango" it is. Thanks for the input. Krakatoa 14:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of "Open Games"

I reordered these as best I could in terms of popularity without consulting a database -- e.g. most popular W 2nd move+ most popular B 2nd move + most popular W 3rd move first, most popular W 2nd move+ most popular B 2nd move + second most popular W 3rd move second, etc. This seems to violate the "alphabetical order by move" principle evidently used in the other lists of variations (e.g. first openings where W moves something on the a-file, then openings where W moves something on the b-file, etc.). If people don't like it, we can revert -- although I think "Three Knights Game" and "Danish Gambit" need to be revised along the lines that I have done it. Krakatoa 18:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the ordering of the opening lines in the lists, although I can give a few reasons why the ordering used in the Oxford Companion (basically alpha sort, with pawn moves sorting before moves of any other pieces and I think castling sorting last) was originally suggested. The Oxford sort has the advantage of being a fixed sort order, so it's easy to tell where each opening will go. Finding an opening in the list now requires searching the entire list or knowing roughly how popular we think the opening is, and if you know that already you might not need this article anyway. The Oxford order completely specified, so disagreements are eliminated. It doesn't depend on criteria like popularity, which aren't completely specified (GMs or club players?, OTB or correspondence?, all of recorded chess history or last 20 years or last 10 years or last 5 years?, etc.) We can order the prose discussion of the openings by popularity, so the most important openings get discussed first and the less important ones go last. (You can see this ordering in the prose in the Open games section.)
Your description of the Three Knights is good. I don't think the change to the Danish Gambit is really what we want. One problem is that some openings fall through the classifications if you use that definition: the Half-Danish with 4.Nxc3 recommended by Alekhine doesn't qualify as either a Center Game or a Danish in that scheme. (It will often transpose into a position reachable from the Scotch, but that isn't certain.) Another problem is that reference works like MCO consider 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 to be the characteristic moves of the Danish. Of course in reality the Danish is just a gambit variation of the Center Game. The fact that it's considered separate and the many QGD lines aren't is of course largely a historical accident due to the Open Games being extensively explored earlier than the Closed Games, just as all of the Italian game lines (Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Two Knights, and Hungarian) could really just be variations of of a single opening. You can see other quirks of trying to choose characteristic moves for the opening here: for the Center Game we include 3.Qxd4 although if you look at Center Game we treat lines with 3.Nf3 and even 3.f4!? just as do most opening references. In the Semi-Open Games we've got a couple: For the French our key moves are just 1.e4 e6, although its still easy at that point to enter lines that aren't normally considered the French. The Franco-Benoni Defense is listed separately here as well although I have mixed feelings about including it. It usually isn't treated as a French line in most opening references so it needs a separate article, but on the other hand it's a fairly minor line to list here. The Caro-Kann is much the same. For classification purposes the C-K is just 1.e4 c6, but it's essential for novices to know that the typical followup is 2.d4 d5. Quale 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Open Games vs. other openings

You guys have done an amazing job with these opening articles so far. I do have a quibble however: the openings after 1.e4 e5 are receiving far more article space than their popularity would merit. Compare the coverage of the Sicilian with that of the Ruy Lopez for example. Of course I'm not suggesting removing anything, rather more attention could be devoted to other openings. If you can cover the rest as well you've covered 1.e4 e5 then it will be a remarkable accomplishment.

Richter-Veresov Attack popularity inconsistency

This page says that "The Richter-Veresov is played at the top levels of chess", however on the Richter-Veresov Attack page it states "The opening has never been very popular at the top level, but various prominent players have employed it occasionally". I'm not familiar enough with the top level of chess play to decide which of these statements is more true, but hopefully someone with the knowledge will be able to fix this up a bit.

It is definitely not a very common opening at the top levels. Themindset 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Monkey's bum etc...

I complete agree with the anonymous user who removed the Monkey's bum variation. There are far too many of these silly variations appearing in this article, it's as if every reader who comes upon it is compelled to add their own little coffee-house line. I think this misses the point of the article, and perhaps a new article entitled Silly chess openings or perhaps the more professional sounding Esoteric chess openings should be created to catalogue such lines... What do you fellows think? Themindset 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree too, that variation is extremely minor. By the way, I think that anon is none other than Quale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for adding the darn thing! I had no idea that I was contributing to a ongoing problem... you see, I came across the Monkey's Bum via the random article tool, and I thought it needed some attention, so I took it under my wing. I'm sure you all understand that after you spend a certain amount of time on an article, it seems a shame to see it virtually orphaned. This article seemed like a good place to plant a link, and I figured that it would be removed if it was inappropriate. Well, I was right! Cheers, Melchoir 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you start an article called Unusual chess openings, I think that would be an excellent article to create. Themindset 09:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, but I don't know enough about chess to do it. Someone else will have to step up, I guess. Melchoir 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Would the Fred Defence fall under this category? I added to the list of alternative responses to 1. e4 because it is notable as being pretty much the worst possible response, but I guess it should probably be classed as unusual? Damburger 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Defence is OK to add to this main chess opening page as it is an opening, and not a variation of an opening like Monkey Bum is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Opening goals edit

Removed pawn structure as one of the main goals of the opening. There are many other plans typically carried out in the opening but I don't think destruction of the pawn structure is the most important or the most common of these. I added these in an extra paragraph.

Maybe it is an idea to keep the pawn structure mentioning (as the last item in the list), but add the other plans in a more extensive way. Bob.v.R 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think anon was right in deleting it. Firstly, if we mention pawn structure, then we have to mention a whole slew of strategic plans (trading/ceding the bishop pair, control of key squares, gaining space, etc.) and it becomes a discussion of chess strategy in general. It's also overwhelming for a beginner who's only looking for a few simple tips. Actually, the "chess strategy and tactics" article needs expansion and probably needs to be split up into two articles - maybe that's where we should put that sort of thing. Walter Chan 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Walter, the article is not meant to be tips for beginners, it is supposed to be an encyclopedic treatment of the concept of the Opening in chess. Themindset 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

'Open/Closed games' terminology

Why are certain openings called 'open'/'closed'? This terminology could do with explanation. 84.70.185.115 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I must admit that I am not 100% sure about this, but I think 1.e4 e5 are called "open" because there will usually be a clearing of pawns in the centre early on in the game leading to an "open" position. In 1.e4 e5 openings, White usually plays d2-d4 sooner or later, and the pawn clearance starts with either ...exd4 or dxe5. In 1.d4 openings, the central pawns have a tendency to stay on the board, making the position "closed". There are naturally exceptions, the closed variation of the Ruy Lopez can be lead to a pretty closed position, while the positions arising from the Albin Counter-Gambit are hardly closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a bang-on explanation Sjakkalle. Themindset 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4

Is there a opening that starts like this that is significant enough to put in this article? It is similar to the Richter-Veresov Attack but it is more like a mirrored Italian Game rather than a mirrored Ruy Lopez. Either way, could someone give me the name of this opening and maybe direct me to some analysis on it? I've been playing this lately and I want to get some insight. Thanks.128.195.18.170 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is called the Barry Attack. See [2] for links. Krakatoa 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6)

I deleted the Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6) from the article. There is no article on it, it is highly obscure, and it seems almost certain, absent ridiculous play by one or both sides, to transpose to some other opening such as the French Defense (after 2.e4 d5), Queen's Gambit Declined (2.c4 d5), Franco-Benoni (2.e4 c5), Dutch Defense (2.c4 f5) Nimzo-Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Kangaroo Defense, Bogo-Indian Defense, Sicilian Defense (2.e4 c5 3.Nf3), Benoni (2.e4 c5 3.d5), English Defense, Hippopotamus Defense, or Kingston Defense. If anyone disagrees, so ahead and write an article on the Horwitz Defense, then revert my deletion of it. Krakatoa 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

opening nomenclature

I've made some changes to the beginning of the section opening nomenclature, removing egregious errors of fact (viz., an allegation regarding the absence of chess notation, which has been known at least since the 9th century in Arab countries, and the 13th in Europe) and replacing them with some general history regarding systematic opening study. JStripes 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're wrong about the "egregious errors of fact" regarding chess notation. Arab practice is irrelevant, as these names are not Arabic. I'm unfamiliar with your source that chess notation was known in Europe in the 13th century—the Göttingen manuscript dates from 1471 and I don't think it is an example of a practical chess notation. Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess has some sample moves as described by Damiano in 1562, almost a hundred years later:
Thou shalt remove thy King to the second house of the kinges bishoppe
...then he shall be forced to saue his Knight in the second house of the King

The desirability of attaching names to opening sequences of moves as a shorthand is clear. 24.177.112.146 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article!

What a good article! I don't remember ever seeing an article so large and comprehensive, written by so many editors, with such a good organization and consistent style and tone. Bubba73 (talk), 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, overall it's not bad. There are two things I can think of that could make it even better:
  1. A section on the historical development of openings would be a really good addition.
  2. A lot of the article is devoted to listing and classifying openings. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to direct readers to other pages for this - using pages like King's Pawn Game and Indian defence for instance. Irregular openings basically duplicates the section in this article - maybe we should just direct readers there. And couldn't/shouldn't Semi-open game and Closed game have their own articles?
- youngvalter 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You make good suggestions. In particular, I agree that semi-open and closed need articles. And there is Open Game which may have a lot of duplication with King's Pawn Game. Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In this case this page came first, and irregular openings was copied from it. That doesn't mean that reorganization wouldn't be good. A fair place to start might be to consider trimming the list of Open games to just the well-known openings, and directing the reader to another page for the complete list. Open Game would be a reasonable page, and it also was copied directly from this article. As a survey I like that this article gives an overview of of open, semi-open, closed, semi-closed, etc. openings in one spot. I think this is a convenience for the reader rather than requiring going to 4 or 5 separate articles. If this article mentioned only the most important openings in each of the classifications and left the complete lists for the subpages, we could remove Hungarian Defense, Konstantinopolsky Opening, Rousseau Gambit, etc. as these are really too minor for a high-level overview. Quale 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
A section on historical development of the openings would be outstanding. Potentially there is enough to say to require a separate page, but the first thing to do is find some good references. I think Raymond Keene wrote a book (in 1985?) specifically on this subject, but I've never seen it. Some of John Watson's works might also help, as might Richard Réti and Aron Nimzovitch. Even H.J.R. Murray can probably help for early developments (until 1900). Quale 06:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought about it some more, and I think cutting down on the number of openings mentioned as suggested would improve the article. Perhaps it should directly mention roughly only the openings rated as Category:High-importance chess articles as discussed at WT:CHESS. I think this should include a few extra king's pawn openings that aren't commonly played but are well-known to beginners and club players (Guioco Piano, Scotch, King's Gambit, etc.). I said "roughly only" because I don't think any opening in Unusual first moves for White rates high importance, but we still need to say something about them. Probably we could keep the prose paragraph that explains why they are unusual without giving any of their (fairly obscure) names and cut the list, directing the reader to the irregular openings page for details. If we did this, the extra space could be used for a better description of the important openings (Ruy and Sicilian are short-changed here, among others) and we could put some more diagrams back. I can work on this tonight, unless someone else gets there first. Quale 14:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary style

I got a start on splitting detail into subpages summary style, working on Open Game and creating Semi-Open Game and Closed Game. The Indian systems are next up. We already have a Indian defences page, which has a few good bits not in the Indian systems section but there's a lot to merge from this page. It's harder to know what to do with the Chess opening#Other Black responses to 1.d4 section since this isn't a satisfactory page title. Perhaps we could create a Semi-Closed Game page. Semi-closed isn't as common terminology as Open, Semi-open, and Closed, but it is used. Strictly Semi-open semi-closed should also include the Indian defenses, but we could direct readers to the Indian defenses page and then cover the Dutch, the Polish, and the rest. Quale 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! The diagrams under their respective category headers are great! :) --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Way back when (early 2005 I think), this page did have some diagrams, but coverage was uneven. When we systematically expanded coverage to practically every main opening (not variations and subvars), we lost the diagrams because there wasn't room for them all. By trimming the coverage to only the most important openings I thought we could put some diagrams back. I used a trick described on WP:PIC to try to get the diagrams to automatically float and wrap into columns adapting to different screen widths. It works well on Firefox, but not on some versions of IE. Quale 14:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

White has 3 knights...

White snuck another knight onto the board in the illustration of the Queen's Indian Defense. Knights appear on b1, g1, and c3. Anybody know how to fix that? --Badger151 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing this out. I made the same mistake in Indian defence. I've fixed the diagrams. Quale 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical Question

Why does this page take so long to load up? Does anyone else have this problem? Is it to do with the layout of the game diagrams? Moonraker12 08:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some small suggestions

Really nice article, especially considering its large scope. A few small suggestions:

  • The intro should make explicit the 2 meanings of "opening": stage of game; sequence of moves.
  • The "center control" topic goes on too long about "classical" vs hypermodern view of the center - I think it would be better with 30% fewer words.
  • It might be good to pull together the various statements of general aims in the opening (basic development; Fine's view; Silman's view) before describing specific opening "tasks".
  • And of course more citations are needed. Philcha (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding general aims in the opening, basic development etc. It seems to me the issue arose before on Rules of Chess and the objection was WP:NOT 'Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual'. Whether that applies here I'm not sure, but give it consideration. ChessCreator (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there would be a problem with WP:NOT. Bubba73 (talk), 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What about 1... c5 ?

Very nice article indeed, only was I surprised to see no coverage of the black response 1...c5. Is there a specific reason other than no editor has worked it so far? --Childhood's End (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 1. e4 c5 is poorly covered in this article, would recommend you see Sicilian Defence and it's subpages. If you are willing, add a ...c5 section yourself. ChessCreator (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The level of coverage of the Sicilian in the article currently is perfectly appropriate for this survey. If the coverage of the Sicilian were expanded here, then so should be the coverage of every other popular opening. That would be out of place here. Quale (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC) On second thought, I should temper that a little. The Sicilian is popular enough that it could get about 2 to 3 more sentences in this article, but no single opening deserves more than that here. Quale (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
For 1.e4 e5, a section exists, 'Open_games (1.e4 e5)' with 6 diagrams with resulting openings explained and listed. 1.e4 c5 has one diagram with little explanation and no resulting opening. In modern chess and for many years, 1. e4 c5 has been the most common reply to 1.e4. However I would agree that's not been reflected in literature as 1.e4 e5 has quite a historical significant, and knowing that most people interested in the Sicilian would be for modern purposes it is perhaps best they are lead into the Sicilian Defence article anyway. ChessCreator (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You're comparing apples and oranges a bit here, but you're right that this is due to historical reasons. 1.e4 e5 is not a single opening so it is not comparable to 1.e4 c5. 1.e4 e5 gets a whole section because that's the way that openings are broken down in opening books (Open Games vs. Semi-Open Games). The Sicilian is just one of several popular Semi-Open Games, and the Semi-Open Games together get a section just as the Open Games together get a section. Also the resulting "openings" after 1.e4 c5 are variations, while the resulting openings after 1.e4 e5 are in fact still considered separate openings, not variations of the double king's pawn opening. (Unfair? Maybe, but that's the way it is. Everything after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 could and probably should be considered variations of a single opening, but that isn't how the nomenclature developed. This effect is particularly pronounced in the Queen's pawn openings, where mere "variations" are often more important than most king's pawn "openings".) The Sicilian as a whole is then comparable to the individual Open Games (Sicilian to Scotch Game or Sicilian to Ruy Lopez), not to all the open games combined. In that comparison the Sicilian could deserve slightly more coverage here than say the Scotch, but remember that because no individual opening should be given more than two or three sentences here, there isn't going to be much differentiation. We have several levels of articles on the openings, so we only include the very most important openings in this top level survey, including of course those most popular (today and in the past) and a few others for didactic purposes. (If amount of coverage were based strictly on importance, the irregular openings wouldn't get mentioned here at all, and that wouldn't work.) The Open Game, Semi-Open Game, Closed Game, Semi-Closed Game, Indian Defence, and Irregular opening second level survey articles can include more detail. (Some of these articles could use improvement.) The greatest amount of detail should be in the individual article on the opening, and possibly sub-articles on specific variations for the most popular or important openings. This is an application of summary style. If you want to see what the article looks like when individual openings get sections rather than organizing with high level divisions we use now, look at the page on 11 March 2005. We improved the article a lot in the three weeks following. Quale (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the article's biggest problem is that it goes into far too much detail about particular opeinigs and families of openings.
I'd keep the useful list of opening terminology, and promote "Anti-" to a sub-heading on the samelevel as the rest of the terms.
I'll edit "Classification of chess openings" to repeat the x-link to List of chess openings.
I'd be happy to see the material about open, semi-open and closed games moved (or even removed). Besides being too detailed, it's misleading as there are open, semi-open and closed variations in many openings. For example: French Defense is usually fairly closed but the Rubinstein Variation is at least semi-open and and so is one wild line in the usually very closed Winawer variation; the Nimzo-Indian varies from closed (Samisch variation) to at least semi-open; and the Closed Morphy Defence to the Ruy Lopez is usually very closed despite starting with 1. e4; e5.
OTOH the article should say say something about transpositions and how they can open up a very wide range of choices and can be used to lure an opponent into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory (see e.g. Transpo Tricks in Chess. This should perhaps go into "Aims of the opening". Philcha (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC.

Would be nice to know why White does not play gxf in the perenyi Attack

Fixed lede

Language in lede referred to "this article" which is not recommended, so i struck it and did a tiny rewrite. i mention it here as this is an otherwise extremely mature and well written article, and i am not a regular contrib. if my phrasing is still not on point, please correct me, but i know that the striking of that specific language is necessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted First Paragraph

I took the liberty of deleting the first paragraph of this article because it was not a good definition of 'Chess Opening' and dwelt on rather trivial semantics.

Sure a chess opening can refer to either a stage of the game or a series of moves. The key is that it is the initial series of moves but this was not stated until the second paragraph. That the term can also refer to the stage of the game that encompasses those moves is a rather trivial point. The fact that people use the synonym interchangeably in common speech is also trivial - since this is a general phenomenon for most synonyms. For example, few people would have trouble understanding the sentence, "The blonde was happy she had blonde hair", where 'blonde' refers to either a person or a hair color.

Its better to get straight to the point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfero (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It also seemed sort of redundant with the second paragraph to me. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A small request from a reader

While WP:NOT 'Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual' is of course relevant to my inquiry, and I don't ask that the article be turned into an instruction manual, I do find the article a bit daunting and not quite as helpful as it could be with a sentence or two of guidance regarding the relative "importance" of various openings.

To set the context, I suspect I am like many readers of this article: I know how to play chess (since I was a child) but I know little of chess theory. My daughter has become interested in chess, and I thought we might together become more literate in the subject by learning 3-5 of the most "famous" or "important" openings that a young player should learn. But this article mentions by name a few dozen openings, and I can't quite make out which ones are the ones I ought to study first.

To keep it encyclopedic, the sort of sentence I'm looking for would be something like an addition just after this line: "Professional chess players spend years studying openings, and continue doing so throughout their careers, as opening theory continues to evolve." We might continue at that point to say something like "Kasparov's famous educational text for beginners, Chess for people who aren't nearly as smart as I am, which means all of you suggests that the study of X, Y, and Z opening provides a solid start." (Obviously I'm joking respectfully about that title, as I don't even know what textbook would be considered helpful. :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to list (in a sourced way) about five of the most common openings, as far as frequency played or at least coverage in the literature. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I think that the chess articles (mainly handled by the chess project) have a lot of good material. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The request to identify the "most important" openings is a bit tricky, because there are so many openings which are important and which a player can choose from. In fact, almost all the openings which have a bullet listing in the article are major openings, played frequently in games between grandmasters and amateurs alike. The only bulleted openings which I would call "rare" are Center Game, Danish Gambit, Stonewall Attack, and the Sokolsky Opening.
I have added a section on opening repertoires, because most players put some thought into that matter. I have cited Chess for Tigers concerning the three main categories of opening (White opening, Black vs. 1.e4, and Black vs. 1.d4), but I have seen that classification elsewhere as well. Which openings you pick to fill each "slot" is largely a matter of taste. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
In fact, a problem with your initial request is that the most famous/important openings are not recommended for players to study first. For example, currently, the Sicilian and several Indian defences are very popular at high level, but they are definitely not what a young player should study first, according to most instructional books. This is because they don't work according to « principles » that can be easily explained, but are more like a very large body of particular cases.
Another problem is that many beginners (or « false beginners ») think that they should study openings first because they are related to the beginning of the game. In reality, most instructional books say just a few words about them, and quickly jump to endgames and tactics, simply because beginners will benefit much more from these in their first lessons: endgames because it teaches how to handle each piece and the most common combinations of them, tactics because they basically decide the game at « rank and file » levels. This is also because teaching an opening to someone who does not know basic tactics is next to useless, the student simply doesn't understand what he is being told.
Therefore, in my opinion, suggesting to learn openings only from scratch would be a mistake. The best way to handle this would be to suggest a few good books for beginners that cover not only openings, but the whole game, with a section on openings. Books that focus on openings are obviously also relevant in the article, but, in my opinion, only for players who already know the basics covered in the general books. Oyp (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I checked four elementary books and none of them had a short list of recommended openings for beginners. In fact, A World Champion's Guide to Chess by Susan Polgar doesn't say anything about openings!
You are right in that many of the most popular openings are not good choices for beginners. I've heard that the Soviet/Russian School teaches fundamentals first (Chess tactics, chess strategy, chess endgame) and gets to openings when they are about 18. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a section on "goals of the opening": control of the center (usually with early pawn moves), development of pieces, king safety (castling), etc. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See Chess_opening#Common_aims_in_opening_play SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, it is already there! So a beginner would probably be better advised to follow those general principles rather than get into specifics. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all, this was really helpful and enlightening. I will abandon my original concept of studying openings, and will instead go and buy Susan Polgar's book. Seriously, this is great information. I wonder (and the answer might be no) if the section that says that great chess players spend a lot of time studying openings might in some sourced way indicate that this is a more "advanced" topic and not where beginners should begin. If not, that's no big deal, but at least one reader (me!) read the article and thought I had best start learning dozens of openings, when in fact I've not mastered (nor taught my daughter anything about) the fundamentals. I was wrong to think that, and I wonder whether and if so, how, Wikipedia might be made more useful to newbies, without becoming an instructional manual. I leave it in your more than capable hands, as I am not knowledgeable enough to answer my own musings. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have Susan Polgar's book, but I'm not sure it is the best one. It does cover fundamentals but then a large part of the book are positions where the person is to find a checkmate. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have used Lars Bo Hansen's book How Chess Games are Won and Lost which covers the different phases in a chess game plus the transitions between opening, middlegame, and endgame, and he does have a note about amateur players spending too much of their chess studies on the opening phase, this is now in the article. Another quote which I think I might add is that it is preferable to be slightly worse out of the opening but comfortable with your position, than slightly better without any clue as to how to proceed. Simon Webb made similar points in the Chess for Tigers chapter "Looking in the Mirror". (Hansen's book contains many fine observations, but it is not really for beginners, Webb's is probably easier to digest although that is not a beginner's book either.) With that said, most opening books today are not all that bad because they usually contain verbal descriptions and examples of the typical plans each of the players can pursue in the middlegame. On the other hand, the five books making up Encyclopedia of Chess Openings are far too advanced for most players to use as anything else than reference material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that about being in a slightly worse position that you like. In correspondence chess I used to haul out the ECO and blindly pick the line that led to the best evaluation for me. Sometimes I would get to a position I didn't like at all. As far as learning specific openings, I didn't start that until a few months before my first tournament. So you can play quite a while on just general principles. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert War

Let's head off a revert war. I made much needed changes. User:Quale reverted completely to some rather poor text full of misleading mumbojumbo. I put my edits back, as the original text is poor and inaccurate. If they are flawed, please point out the flaw and we will edit the flaws out together. The page is much improved as I have left it. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

1) "rather poor text full of misleading mumbojumbo" / IMO your rewrite is simply outrageous because it is confusing and unnecessarly abstract, packed with unnecessary math and other technical jargon and POV totally inappropriate to the article. 2) "the original text is poor and inaccurate" / I agree with Quale the original text needs improvement, but your rewrite is not improvement – it introduces worse problems and is dis-improvement. (Plus several statements in it are inaccurate or incorrect themselves, so more objectivity is desirable; boasting isn't warranted.) 3) "the page is much improved as I have left it" / Improved for whom? Perhaps your idea of audience for this article needs to be re-reviewed.
The logical and appropriate thing is to follow Quale's suggestion to work out changes here. Your insistence to work backwards from full install isn't logical or appropriate in light of the above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Fine, I some time to edit but no time for internet wars with people who live for that sort of thing. Have fun with the chess pages, see you later. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Jacques also made similar changes to chess and chess endgame. I haven't examined them, but someone needs to. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we can look at Mr. Attitude's adds/edits, to see what contributions have value for inclusion (I'm sure there are some probably), but include in a more reasonable way (i.e. not his writing style). Can editors suggest which add/edit point(s) are worth retaining? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
p.s. It's interesting how he declared "war" thru his section title choice, after one polite revert by Quale, then clearly was "taking no prisoners" in followup comments!
I just went through a battle at rules of chess about 2 weeks ago, so I'm not anxious for another one. There were so many changes to chess ending that I haven't felt like evaluating them. I saw that they were obviously not vandalism and they were clearly not contrary to facts like the recent edits to rules of chess, but I don't feel like tackling chess ending right now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand you (even I don't have the same "flight hours" you have). It's wearing. Christ! (I took one glance at Chess endgame and first glimpse caught this: "... combinatorially complex for exhaustive computation by present-day machines and remains dependent on heuristics" ... so of course thought immediately, "that's gotta be Mr. Attitude".) Ok, as time permits... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"... have not led to sudden checkmate and the cumulative effect of irreversible piece capture (unlike chess's Japanese cognate shogi in which pieces return) has resulted in a reduced number of pieces remaining on the board ..." da-da-daa-da-daa ... (I think that's called simplification or transition, duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
We oughta change every chess article 'x' to start off saying: "'x' is a non-rigorous term referring to ...". How 'bout it!? (Kidding!) Ihardlythinkso (talk)
Yow. I wanted to be nice about this, but frankly your edits to this article weren't very good. I thought your edits to chess were better. Quale (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Quale, can you give your opinion on his edits to chess endgame? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The edits to chess endgame were also poor, and exhibited the same problems seen in this article. I reverted them. Quale (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I think edits to chess endgame are excellent (better then on Chess openings for sure). I've reverted. Be precise about what you percieve to be the problem looks like you are getting personal with this editor. Stay calming. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Jaxdelaguerre really understands the subject and the edits are well intended but also it's way to flowery with redundancy that can be cut and requires copy-editing afterwards. But, no big deal. It's nice to have fresh input. There is always WP:BRD, stay cool! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We should take this over to chess endgame. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I moved most of the endgame stuff over to that article. Jaxdelaguerre replied over there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

IM Jeremy Silman

One line in the article reads about the 1950s another objective has gradually become more dominant. According to IM Jeremy Silman, the purpose of the opening is to create dynamic imbalances between the two sides, which will determine the character of the middlegame and the strategic plans chosen by both sides. - As far as know Silman is no great theoretician of the game,then why he and his imbalance theory given such importance in the article. Someone pl.tell me--binu (talk)

  • The "According to IM Jeremy Silman" text is a bit awkward, but I think we would be on fairly solid ground if we just removed the in-text mention of Silman and kept his name in the footnotes while only making small changes to the remaining sentence. Silman is a pretty well-known author and his comments do carry some authority. He is the main proponent of using the "imbalance" vocabulary, but his overall ideas are shared by many. For example, one of the books I have, How Chess Games are Won and Lost by Lars Bo Hansen, devotes an entire chapter to the "Transition from Opening to Middlegame" where he goes through the strategical pawn structures that arise from the opening and the plans that each side then strive to carry out, which turns out to be a very broad subject that is not at all inconsistent with the "imbalance" interpretation of Silman. Simon Webb's Chess for Tigers devotes a chapter to selecting openings where he emphasizes picking the lines that lead to positions that you understand and know how to play well. (In Silman's terms, this would be lines leading to positions with imbalances that you know how to handle.) Something like "The dynamic imbalances arising from the opening will determine the character of the middlegame and the strategic plans chosen by both sides." should be OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Beginners' opening principles

Hmm ... can't seem to find a WP list of beginner's opening principles. I see "aims of the opening" section in this article, but that's different. Beginners' principles exist in the literature, shouldn't they be accumulated in a WP list somewhere, w/ brief definition? (Maybe a section in this article? I'm thinking entries like: "Don't move a piece twice in the opening", "Don't develop the Queen prematurely", "In the opening move only the center pawns", "[Develop] knights before bishops", etc.) If a list already exists somewhere and I've overlooked it, sorry, plz let me know, thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The second and fourth could go as sub-principles of "develop weaker pieces first". (And doubtless there should be a principle "don't treat these principles as dogma or take them overly literally"...) Double sharp (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Defence / Defense

Small issue, but this article switches between American and British English spellings of the word Defence. I'm wondering if there's any reasoning behind this. Since I'm not aware of any, I'm tempted to switch to Defence. Joseph M Warren (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess_opening/Archive_1&oldid=987434256"