Talk:Dutch Defence

Staunton Gambit
Note that Staunton Gambit is set up to redirect to this article, but there is an article Dutch, Staunton gambit. Should that article be merged into this one? Should Staunton Gambit be directed to that article instead? Krakatoa 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checked and this is now a separate article. ChessCreator (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Staunton analysis of 2.h3
It seems a number of sources have incorrectly credited Staunton with the analysis of the 2.h3 line. As can be verified by examining the sources, he took his analysis directly from the Handbuch des Schachspiels published in 1843. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

2. Bg5
Article says "(hoping for the naive 2...h6 3.Bh4 g5 4.Bg3 (4.e4!? is also playable) f4? 5.e3 fxg3?? 6.Qh5#)".

This is a minor sideline, but BCO2 devotes two lines to it, so clearly it's not just hoping for a cheap trap that even a beginner would see through. I'll delete this nonsense, but I have no idea what to write about 2. Bg5 in its place. Maybe just listing it as a second move that has been tried is enough. 2.24.117.17 (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)