Talk:Gioachino Greco

Untitled
Surely only one stub-tag should be used. It look confusing with the two that are now used. I am going to go ahead and remove the "italian biography" one and keep the "biography related chess" one, since it seems to be the most fitting. --CygnusPius 12:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, not sure if anyone's going to read this seeing as the last comment was a year and a half ago. But this guy did not 'use' the Giuoco Piano, it was named after him.
 * OK, I read your comment. It's not true: Giuoco and Greco are not the same word. Giuoco Piano means 'quiet game'. JudahH 13:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Chess Importance
This article was rated Top. In my view it's only high, as a historical figure he's not so astounding, so have changed the rating accordingly. If you believe otherwise then change it again, but would be helpful to leave a reason. ChessCreator (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the period of chess history prior to Philidor, Greco is arguably the most important chess figure. Certainly what we know of early seventeenth century chess play is almost entirely due to his legacy.JStripes (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Greco Mate?
Why is Greco mate not discussed? This mate was named after him. Here is one link i have provided that discusses Greco Mate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.157.221 (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed your link farm spam. MMetro (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Crazy as it might sound, link-farm-spam guy had a point... Greco's Mate is a real thing. Seems like it would be best to have a real Greco/NN example diagrammed... but I can't find one. Anyone know one offhand? Mack Robot (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Greco x The Devil
I remember that I read, a long time ago, about two twin chess problems of "mate in two", with a story around them based on Greco.

IIRC, the story was:
 * Greco was playing with a very beautiful and mysterious woman, but after a long battle, he saw himself in a winning position, and announces mate in two.
 * The woman then replies that that was impossible, because Greco had lost his queen, while she still had hers.
 * And, using wizardry, the woman changes the color of Greco's white queen to black.
 * Then Greco replies that even without that change, he still can mate in two.
 * Then the woman changes to the Devil himself and vanishes.

Does anyone know where is the source for this? Albmont (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Greco vs NN 1620
Move 5. O-O is impossible because the undeveloped Knight is at g1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.184.22 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You caught that too, huh. When was that edit made? MMetro (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Was Greco of Greek descent?
The name would point to a Greek or Italo-Greek ancestry, is anything know about that? -- 217.190.216.15 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is certain, but have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griko_people


 * See the new “Name” section. I think it answers your question well. JStripes (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Number of Games
The claim that Greco's games number 77 must be false. This number stem from Professor Hoffman's text (Hoffmann was a pseudonym for Angelo Lewis), which combined games with similar beginnings from earlier texts. Hoffmann, The Games of Greco (1900). Greco / Francis Beale, The Royall Game of Chesse-Play (1656) contains 94 numbered Gambetts, plus an example each of Fool's Mate and Scholar's Mate. William Lewis, The Games of Gioachino Greco (1819) contains 168 games. Some of these games were copied by Greco from earlier writers, but the number of his games must exceed the 77 figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.242.121 (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I wrote this unsigned comment. It accords well with something I wrote on my blog about the same time.JStripes (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There are certainly more than 77, as you say. In fact, Greco (probably? possibly?) wrote some manuscripts that are either lost or unknown, so who knows how many there actually are. This, combined with the uncertainty of the authorship of many of Lewis', means that we really shouldn't be giving a definitive count of games. Something like "dozens" might be appropriate, but I have not included that in my edits. Mack Robot (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Greco study
Averbakh attributes the study to Greco, dating it 1623, in his Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge but is there any confirmation of this? The English Greco translation here doesn't contain any endgames, but there are other reprints/translations out there which may confirm his authorship. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This ending appears in the Orsini MS (1620) and the Lorraine MS (1621). See Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), 350.JStripes (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I would also love to know more about this endgame. The referenced 1656 book gives a stalemate as a win, rather than a draw. (There is an error in a reader's annotation in the specific version I viewed that highlights this confusion). Of course, the study only makes sense if you count a stalemate as a draw- otherwise, the wrong-rook pawn is a forced win regardless. Has anyone actually seen something written by Greco that suggests this study is his composition? As it is now this doesn't make any sense. Mack Robot (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: It turns out that the 1656 book is not meant to be comprehensive; there are many Greco manuals, written at different times, and Herringman chooses from among them. So when the Lawes of Chess are given in that book, they are a version of Greco's Lawes appropriate to a specific audience- presumably the English. That's why the study is not included there- it wouldn't make sense under the given (English) stalemate rules. In another manual, Greco presumably had other stalemate rules for another audience... and would have included that endgame. So there is no contradiction here; the rules of chess were not yet standardized. I call this resolved. Mack Robot (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gioachino or Gioacchino?
The title of the article claims that his first name was Gioachino, but the first words retype it as Gioacchino. Wich one is correct? Kasparov, in his My Great Pedecessors, Part I, spells it as Gioacchino. Which one is correct?

I have seen many different spellings. Gioachino, Gioacchino, Gioachimo, Bioacchimo... Gioachino tends to show up the most, so that is what I believe we should use. This could be resolved by looking at his manuscripts, where he must have signed his name, but I can't find them. Mack Robot (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Spellings weren't always consistent back then. I wouldn't use Kasparov as a source on historical matters, he wasn't always accurate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This French edition has Gioachino. I suspect Gioacchino would be the standard spelling in modern Italian, I believe there have been minor changes in spelling practice since the 17th century (though less than you might expect). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm just finishing up an overhaul of this article... turns out Greco's manuscripts have a bunch of different spellings of Gioachino. (They're in the MS list in the article, if you want to peruse them.) We should go with Gioachino, because that's what most authors use. Mack Robot (talk) 03:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference "SBC"
For anyone who's curious about the SBC reference here, that is the famous "batgirl" (https://www.chess.com/member/batgirl), who as far as I know has kept her last name hidden. But she's been researching and posting and blogging about chess history online basically forever, and was a huge help in getting me sources to expand this article. So that isn't exactly the sketchiest of internet sources. Mack Robot (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I like Sarah (Batgirl) and chat with her from time to time on chess.com. I also respect her work. Nonetheless, her work may not meet the standards for secondary sources that Wikipedia seeks. Although I find she is far more careful than Bill Wall (see below), if we establish a high standard for the sources on this page, she may need to go.JStripes (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I keep going back and forth on this. The statement used from isn't actually about Greco- it's just the observation that, if one can compose a game, one can play that game. So I believe SBC would be fine as a reference for that, because she's notable-enough for her opinion to be worth something.
 * But then, if someone challenges that reference in the future, they might go to the blog and be like "this is clearly not up to Wikipedia standards." And then remove it. So I'd like an unassailable reference (because the statement is true and worth keeping, I think). von der Lasa ALMOST gets there (https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=c6JAAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA118), but not quite. Maybe I'll find a GM to just state that on their blog, or something...Mack Robot (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Bill Wall not credible
This article relies too heavily on Bill Wall's page, which at best is a list of claims that he failed to authenticate. No other source to my knowledge asserts the surname that Wall claims. If you ask him for a source, he will likely have no idea. Some of Wall's list of "facts" are undoubtedly true. Other claims almost certainly false (I could list several). Let the internal inconsistency of his website article suffice. He states that Greco's 1625 Paris MSS are "in the same careless scribble" as earlier MSS and then five paragraphs later notes that Greco's handwriting improved over time. The Paris MSS are the last ones Greco made. He notes correctly that Beale's edition of Greco's games number 94 "Gambetts" and then presents "the 78 games" of Greco at the end of the article. Reliance on such sloppy work as Wall's leads editors of this page to perpetuate errors.JStripes (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bill Wall's personal pages don't qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia. He is very knowledgeable about chess, but for Wikipedia's purposes his pages are akin to blogs.  I thank the editors working to improve the accuracy and detail on this page.  Quale (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if he is knowledgeable or not. I've read a lot of his posts over the years, and he usually offers information not offered any where else. But, a lot of it when I am able to verify proves to be decidedly not so. I agree that blogs are not the sort of secondary source that Wikipedia wants, and that his postings are equivalent to blogs.JStripes (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and challenge sources, but your edit note "removed surname that appears nowhere else except a website by a sloppy researcher" is off the mark. A simple Google search for "gioachino greco cusentino" returns HJR Murray with "Greco, surnamed Cusentino..." So I put that statement back. Mack Robot (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Murray's sentence: "Greco, surnamed 'Cusentino', and more frequently 'il Calabrese', ..." (827) Aside from this sentence, in Murray and every other work of scholarship Gioachino Greco is called Greco, never Cusentino. As near as I can tell, the only primary source with the name Cusentino is the Corsini MS. As he is generally known as Gioachino Greco, it seems to me that should be the title of the article. Perhaps a note that Murray states his surname was Cusentino, or a note that the Corsini MS seems to indicate that was his surname, would not be inappropriate.JStripes (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with JStripes. Cusentino was given undue weight in the lead.  I made a small edit to reflect precisely what Murray says. Quale (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I disagree with you both completely! "Surname" has one modern meaning, "a hereditary name common to all members of a family, as distinct from a given name." (Thanks Google!) But it has an archaic meaning: "a name, title, or epithet added to a person's name, especially one indicating their birthplace or a particular quality or achievement".

"il Calabrese" is only a surname under the archaic definition, that is, for Murray. We cannot rightly call "il Calabrese" a surname, because we use th modern sense.

"Cusentino", however, is a surname in the modern sense. So it should be added to his name, because a surname is... part of a person's name. I'm not suggesting a title change, JStripes. I'm just saying his full name needs to include his surname.

I'm also a little confused by why you think "Cusentino" appearing in both a MS and Murray means it is questionable, somehow. A huge amount of this page relies on Murray... and a single reliable source is enough to include them. Must we have two sources for every fact? Mack Robot (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've read most English language works that mention Greco, and had not noticed the name Cusentino until I saw it here, and credited to a website that is full of errors. But, I must not have read Murray carefully enough or I would have seen it there. Nonetheless, you now are suggesting that Murray employs one definition of surname (the one we use today) and then in the very next phrase, employs an archaic use. You might be correct.


 * Most surnames began as titles or occupations (Taylor, Smith, Collier; Stripes is either farming or torture related). Rigid, modern definitions are a poor guide.


 * I'd like to see a source--any source--that calls him G.G. Cusentino, or anything even close to that. I think the name appears only in one of the Rome manuscripts and several scholars--Von der Lasa, Murray, White--have indicated that the handwriting in the game scores (presumed to be Greco's) differs from that on the title pages. If that's all we have is one manuscript (and Wikipedia frowns on original research) and a strange sentence from Murray, then we don't have much.


 * Incidentally, my copy of Peter J. Monte, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014) arrives tomorrow. It may clear up a few things that I have struggled with concerning Greco. I'll be happy to add it as a source.JStripes (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Cusentino is questionable because it is not how anyone writes about the subject. Everyone calls him Greco, not Cusentino. This is standard practice. Having an article with Cusentino as part of the title confuses readers. Greco may be a nickname (some have speculated that he had Greek parents and there were certainly many of Greek origin in Calabria when he was born) and Cusentino might be his family name, but no one calls him Cusentino. Everyone calls him Greco.JStripes (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Historians are rarely confident of a fact when they have only two sources. Of course, for a real historian, the manuscript is the only source. Murray is an interpretation. JStripes (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Alas, here we are not real historians. Here we are simply wiki-folk. And we can't really interpret the manuscripts, because that's Original Research. We require one reliable source for each relevant fact in an article for it to be included. And no source seems to be claiming that Cusentino was not his surname, so this isn't really much of a controversy. Murray is an acceptable source + no acceptable source contradicts Murray = We report what Murray says. And this is also why we have inline citations- so anyone can see 'Cusentino' comes from Murray. Lastly before I give this up for the night, I would direct you to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography, which indicates that we should use Greco's entire name like in one of their examples, regardless of how people actually reference him.

(Also, hello! I recognize you from cg. I apologize if I'm getting a little short, but as you might realize from the edit history, this page is my baby. And these days one must be extra-protective of a Greco page from roaming 'biographers.') Mack Robot (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is- I agree with you on basically everything. Is it weird that only Murray mentions Cusentino? Yes. Does anybody these days use Cusentino? No. But it isn't for us to determine truth. We simply turn sources into articles, like wiki-producing automata. And NOW I will sleep. Mack Robot (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sleep well. Overall, the article is in pretty good shape. I like how Cusentino is deployed at the present. Do take a look at Peter J. Monte if you get the chance, as I will, perhaps tonight. As I understand from others, it should displace Murray as the goto secondary work for the period he covers. Also, if you recognize me from elsewhere, then perhaps you've seen some of the 43 articles on my chess blog that reference Greco, some of which delve into his history. I am a real historian in real life, even if I am not allowed to be one here. I think I understand your point about "wiki-folk".JStripes (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We can omit mention of Cusentino if we have only a single mention in a single source. Wikipedia editors are given latitude to omit that kind of thing based on the insignificant weight accorded to the claim in the sources.  Bolding Cusentino in the lead as it was before was not going to work, however.  Quale (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"The adjective Cusentino in the title refers to the Calabrian province Cosenza, and Celico (mentioned in the Libretto) belongs to it." Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). Monté cites an Italian language article by A. Sanvito, published in Studien zur Schachgeschichte (2008). Monté's work should be favored over Murray.JStripes (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

At present, all that remains in the article that is credited to Wall is, "and at a young age to make a living over the board.[9][unreliable source?] Mariano Marano, a Sicilian priest[9][unreliable source?] and eminent Italian player of the day, took him as a student." Peter J. Monté disputes all of it through a thorough examination of the little that Salvio (1634) offers concerning Greco. He deals with Salvio's lack of credibility in greater detail in an earlier portion of the book. Salvio, incidentally, states that Marano defeated Greco in Spain, while later works challenge this claim. Salvio's claim about them having known each other prior is a single word (ritrovò), which Monté states means "found or found again" (p. 319). He further traces the line of references that assert a larger role for Marano in Greco's past, as well as skepticism by von der Lasa. Salvio refers to Marano and Greco as rivals. My inclination is to delete the passage I quote in this note, but will wait for a response from others.JStripes (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious; have you read the von der Lasa? Some of those Wall-facts can be referenced to him. The Morano-as-teacher he says is false; Morano-as-Sicilian he says is true; at-a-young-age he says is true. Of course, it's in German. But Google Books has recently become a magic translator... https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=c6JAAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP1 If you're OK with having the vdL reference in German, I can use that as the reference for these (or both references if you want?), since it's much easier to access online than the Monte. Mack Robot (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, wait. It sounds like the Monte disagrees about some of those. What's Monte's opinion of von der Lasa? I can't get to that book. Mack Robot (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I may be able to answer this question more thoroughly later. Monté is very detailed both in praise and criticism, but he does seem to credit von der Lasa with care in his treatment of materials. I have the impression also that many others (Murray, Eales) think von der Lasa's work was the most important scholarly work on Greco in the nineteenth century.JStripes (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

5000 Crowns
The fortune that Greco had of 5000 Scudi (term used by Salvio (1634)--primary source) is sometimes translated crowns and sometimes scudi. Of course, scudi (plural of scudo) is an Italian currency and this fortune was acquired in France. He probably had livres (French coins), but I don't recall seeing that expression in English language texts about Greco. Richard Eales, Chess: The History of a Game (1985), who is more careful than most, states only a "great sum" (87). Perhaps the article should state, "said to be the equivalent of 5000 crowns". I do not think it is standard convention to capitalize currencies.JStripes (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding a list of manuscripts?
I believe the best way to handle naming Greco's manuscripts is in a bibliography section, rather than working them into the rest of the article. If anyone feels like they all should be included (and wants to actually do it!), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_James#Bibliography seems to be a good guide. I'd do it if someone can hunt down an actual list somewhere else, but as it is I can't keep them straight.Mack Robot (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've waded through Murray's list of the manuscripts. I've also waded through White's. My German was never very good, but I have been working with Antonius van der Linde's texts, mostly looking at game scores. Peter J. Monté thinks that Tassilo von der Lasa was more careful than von der Linde. Monté offers a detailed account of each of the manuscripts that I think is more up-to-date than its predecessors.JStripes (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Just finished doing the list from Murray. Feel free to edit using Monté. I also deleted an earlier sentence that went like, "Two other MS, both undated, also exist from this period" (or something like that). If you really liked that, go ahead and put it back in.
 * Also, I'm DYING to see what games you can drag out of Greco's MSS and publish into modernity.Mack Robot (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Will do with the edits from Monté in due time. I finished putting into a database all of the games in Beale (94). Only nine of these are in ChessBase and on chessgames.com. Here's one that I think is quite solid and that I submitted for inclusion on cg.com. The existing databases have 13...Rxg8 14.Qf6#. The infamous NN is better after 13...Kxg8.

[Event "?"] [Site "London"] [Date "1623.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Greco, Gioachino"] [Black "NN"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C53"] [PlyCount "69"] [SourceTitle "Francis Beale's Greco"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Qe7 5. O-O d6 6. d4 Bb6 7. Bg5 f6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 fxg5 10. Qh5+ Kf8 11. Bxg5 Qe8 12. Qf3+ Kg7 13. Bxg8 Kxg8 14. d5 Ne7 15. Bf6 Qf7 16. Nd2 h6 17. Bxh8 Qxf3 18. Nxf3 Kxh8 19. h3 Bd7 20. c4 Bd4 21. Nxd4 exd4 22. Rad1 c5 23. f4 Rf8 24. e5 dxe5 25. fxe5 Rxf1+ 26. Rxf1 Kg8 27. e6 Bc8 28. d6 Nc6 29. d7 Bxd7 30. exd7 d3 31. Re1 d2 32. Re8+ Kg7 33. d8=Q Nxd8 34. Rxd8 Kf7 35. Rxd2 1-0 JStripes (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Games And Constructions
I believe we should have two or three games, illustrating the smothered mate (already included), Greco's Mate (not yet included), and one that's not so short and 'trappy'. (Too many people's impression these days, is that Greco was just a composer of 7-move traps. I used the one above in Talk for now.) If those can be done in two games, all the better. And compositions, the wrong-rook pawn is probably the most well-known? But if someone runs into a second good one, that might be nice too.Mack Robot (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Monté, there are 20 endings in Greco's MSS, but only four or five can be credited to him. Even these seem to simply build upon the ideas of others. The problem that you have now is Greco's most interesting and most original composition, it seems. But there are at least two others worthy of consideration. For instance, 8/8/8/4K3/8/8/3Q1p2/6k1 w is a Greco composition, but the idea is derived from this one by Salvio 1K6/2P5/1q6/2k5/8/8/8/8 w (Black wins). Another is the three pawn problem that I posted a week ago at http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2020/06/a-greco-composition.html. Monté suggests how this one developed from ideas going back to Francesch Vicent (possibly the source for what appears in Lucena's MSS), who may have introduced some ideas concerning three pawns vs. king in Ferrara in 1502, where he was tutor to one of the Borgias. Then Annibale Romei offered 1k6/1P6/8/P1P5/8/8/8/8 w (no White king), followed by one by Carrera. In any case, Greco's composition is original even if the ideas are derivative. Solving Greco's composition, however, had to wait for József Szén in 1836, who placed White's king on d1. This comment is essentially a compressed version of a post I'm planning to put on my blog in a couple of days. JStripes (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiske Claim?
There's a new sentence in the introduction here, "Willard Fiske asserted in Book of the First American Chess Congress (1959) that Greco was born in Morea, but no evidence supports this claim.[8]" Do we even need this? It's one (probably-false) statement, from an author we don't otherwise use. This seems like it could be taken out by analogy to Quale's insufficient-weight reasoning with Cusentino.
 * The whole paragraph discusses Greco's alleged Greek ancestry. While the history of Calabria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabria makes clear that this is a possibility, it is possible that he is from a family that had emigrated to Calabria from Greece hundreds of years before he was born. Fiske is the most prominent writer who has suggested that Greco was from Greece, although there are others. I am not averse to seeing the whole paragraph deleted. But, then, the mystery of a famous tactic that originates in Greco's games, known as the "Greek Gift", is harder to comprehend. What is needed, it seems to me, is some sort of mention that Greco has sometimes been assumed to have had Greek ancestry, but no one has been able to confirm the claim. JStripes (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

First Paris Visit
This whole did-he-or-didn't-he-visit-Paris-in-1621 thing is really odd. Murray seems utterly convinced Greco was there the first time, and gives further details about the visit. von der Lasa talks more about visit too (https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=c6JAAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PA119)

What's Montes reasoning? Given that it's possible that there were manuscripts from Paris-1621, but that they've been lost, I'm not sure their nonexistence is such strong evidence to really undercut the Paris-1621 claim from Murray and vdL... As of now I've made that Monte objection weaker, but feel free to revert if you feel strongly about it. Mack Robot (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You improved my phrasing. Thank you.


 * Now, Monté's problem: While Greco's sojourn in Rome (1619-1620), Nancy (1621), London (1623), and Paris (1624-1625) are are well attested, there is no undeniable evidence of the first Paris visit. Nor, do we know when he visited Madrid. There have been suggestions that Greco accompanied an English delegation to Madrid in 1623, and a visit 1626-1627 also seems plausible. A sojourn in Paris c. 1622 has been mentioned by most (Monté says "all") chess historians as a "tribute to Salvio" (Monté 327). However, Monté devotes a considerable amount of text to questioning Salvio's credibility in the chapters on Lopez, Leonardo, Boi, and Greco.


 * A critical paragraph at the end of the chapter on Greco sums his perspective:
 * "Whereas Salvio's account can be doubted, two questionable major events, Greco's sojourn in Paris in 1622 and his death in the Indies before 1634, might be attested to or refuted by a closer examination of the biographies of his French opponents and by a fortunate discovery of hitherto unknown manuscripts (particularly Beyer's MS and the source for the printed French edition of 1669)." (Monté 354)


 * I would prefer to see the details regarding the alleged Paris visit in 1622 left in, but with a very slight expression of doubt. JStripes (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Use long s in quotes?
The Long_s will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers, having not been used since the 18th century. Should we use it when quoting old texts? I think it will just confuse modern readers, who might mistake it for an f. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. My first thought was in agreement with you, that using long s is a mistake.  But we keep the archaic spelling, so I don't know. Quale (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONFORM is clear about this, don't use long s. "Normalize archaic glyphs and ligatures in English that are unnecessary to the meaning. Examples include æ→ae, œ→oe, ſ→s, and þe→the." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)