Talk:Berlin Defence

Lead reworking proposal
The lead section should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on". I propose (1) changing the lead to this:

The Berlin Defence, also called the Berlin Wall, is a chess opening that begins with the moves:

e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6

The opening is a variation of the Ruy Lopez. After a period of disuse, it experienced a resurgence in popularity when Vladimir Kramnik used it extensively against Garry Kasparov in the 2000 Chess World Championships. Strategically, the Berlin Defence is normally used as a drawing weapon by players who want to obtain a draw as Black, and by players who prefer to play defensively and reach endgames[7].

(2) Move the Encylopedia codes to a list at the end of the article, similar to other chess articles. I think these codes are given too much prominence in a few articles, as they're more for the specialized reader.

(3) I think the solidity/drawishness of the opening is related to the early trade of Queens. Is this worth mentioning somewhere? If so, I can try to source a good reference to back this up.Dhalamh (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The reorganization seems reasonable. May I make a couple of additional suggestions:
 * "Berlin Wall" does not rise to the level of being an actual name of the variation; it was used by chess journalists for a while after Kramnik revived the line, but the novelty soon wore off.
 * I am not sure it is correct to state that the B.D. is "normally used as a drawing weapon", etc. (However if you can find an article or book that supports that, OK with me.)  Later the article (currently) says "a solid opening for Black to use in order to achieve an equal endgame".  Although there is no source for this, it is a harmless thing to say, and so it's OK.  There are many openings, including this one, in which White can bail to a drawish position if that's all he wants, but that doesn't make it a "drawing weapon".  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

why don't we have a section or something on the a4 thing that is used for quick draws?
eg levon vs wesley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dly4PeRrWW8

eg wesley vs magnus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEb1lCJzZ-I

Thewriter006 (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added a section to the article showing the line and included a recent example where it was used in an OTB tournament. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The quotation from Nakamura does not help the article, since he doesn't discuss the actual variation, only his own strategies and motivations.


 * The first part of that paragraph, about the draw between Nakamura and So, likewise is about the present-day chess scene, not about the variation. Note that chessgames.com is not a reliable source, although with games between grandmasters at level, you could sort of get away with it.  But the whole paragraph is tangential to the subject of the article.


 * You are right, the YouTubes are not a reliable source. The remedy in this case is to just delete the material that is citing them; it doesn't much help the article anyway.  Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I agree that everything after the quote doesn't help the article, but I do think that mentioning the infamy of the line among top-level play is useful. Feel free for anyone to revert if they disagree. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * lol whoever said that youtube is reliable in this case? Thewriter006 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not ready for GAN
I appreciate the enthusiasm, but in its present state, this article is nowhere close to meeting the good article criteria. I see references to sources that do not meet the criteria for reliability such as Chessgames database statistics and Chess.com blogs. Some statements are completely unsourced. Meanwhile, out of the many substantial (i.e., book-length) and reliable sources that could be used to write this article, only one (Bernal's book) is cited, which indicates that way too little research has been done. The article's coverage cannot be considered neutral and broad when both the Berlin endgame and 4.d3, which are main lines with tons of theory, somehow receive less attention than the vastly less significant 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 sideline, and another major line 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 is not mentioned at all.

Proper research (see e.g., the books by Cox, Lysyj/Ovetchkin, and Roiz) will show that an important distinction between it and other solid responses to 1.e4 like the Petroff, and a crucial reason why it remains so popular, is that Black is not just grovelling for a draw in the Berlin endgame, but has a flexible setup with dynamic possibilities thanks to his bishop pair.

We currently have two articles on chess openings which are Good Articles, Budapest Gambit and Modern Benoni. I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination until more research and writing has been done and this article approaches the breadth and depth of the other two. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies! I believe I ended up inadvertently submitting a GA nomination because I was using this page as a sandbox to play around with the GA templates, and I must have accidentally clicked "publish" instead of the "back" button. Please pardon my clumsiness – I have pulled the GA nomination. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cobblet Also, pardon my ignorance, but I am a bit new to Talk pages on Wikipedia – do you still receive the notification even if I edited the source instead of replying to you directly via the built-in reply button? (This post was made via the reply button, but the post above was not.) SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, no harm done. I only get pinged when you use the reply button. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

was this page ever deleted or something?
wikipedia n00b here. i could swear i looked this up between Jan 2021 to mid 2021 but couldn't find anything. (even now I'm surprised I created a talk page section last year because I thought this page didn't exist.)

was this page ever deleted or something? How would I check for deletion history or lack thereof? Thewriter006 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Berlin Defence, after consensus that this is the primary topic and due to the absence of any other article with this title (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Berlin Defence (chess) → Berlin Defence (Ruy Lopez) – Not a helpful disambiguation conisdering Berlin Defence. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Although, I would think if it were just the chess topics, a hatnote would suffice; it seems like this is hypothetical disambiguation with the concept of defending the city of Berlin, without actually disambiguating that meaning. Battle of Berlin might come the closest, but there are probably other topics. That said, it's not like we have Defense of Berlin or similar. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fine with a move to Berlin Defence and usurping the dab page. After a little of hunting around, I agree the Ruy Lopez line is more prominent than the line in the Bishop's opening. I still believe the original intent was to disambiguate with defense of the city, but as I said there isn't any clear target for that meaning. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Berlin Defence. This is the primary topic.  The disambiguation page is not needed; the existing hatnote to Bishop's Opening is sufficient. 162 etc. (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to Berlin Defence per 162 etc. There is no other article using the title. Station1 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the Ruy Lopez line is a primary topic over the other one, just becasue it has a stand-alone article and the other has a section at the parent opening. A term with just one single existing article is not automatically the primary topic (see WP:PRIMARYRED) though it often is consistent with it being so. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When there's only one article, there's no need to disambiguate the title itself. And when there is only one other topic, a hatnote on that article is just as good as a dab page (or better, since those who want Ruy Lopez don't have to click on anything). Station1 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if we include all traffic to Bishop's Opening, the variation of the Ruy Lopez gets a majority of clicks |Berlin_Defense_(Bishop%27s_Opening)|Bishop%27s_Opening. Kramnik famously won the Classical World Chess Championship 2000 using it, and it's been part of all Super GMs' repertoires since. There's no evidence that the variation of the Bishop's Opening has the same notability. 162 etc. (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)