Talk:Giuoco Piano

First comment
There is an "extra" black knight on square f6 in the picture. Somebody should fix that. - Bryan is Bantman 23:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, figured it out and fixed it myself. :) - Bryan is Bantman 23:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Guioco Piano (redirect)
While correcting a misspelling elsewhere I noticed that Guioco Piano redirects to this page, making it more likely that that misspelling will be used elswhere. I'm not sure what the best way to handle common misspellings is, but an automatic redirect doesn't seem optimal. If the mistake is common enough to need treatment, it should probably get a little page explaining that it is a misspelling, with the link given there, no? (Total neophyte here.) post added 09:31, 12 May 2005 from 82.228.195.112 (Talk)


 * I don't know how common that misspelling is, but it's clear that I'm doing it all the time. Thanks for pointing this out.  I'm fixing the mistakes I made in Bishop's Opening, Hungarian Defense, and Ponziani Opening.  I made the mistake multiple times in the Bishop's Opening article alone.  Quale 15:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an old discussion, but I'm not sure which is corect spelling now. The books I've looked at all say "Giuoco Piano", not "Guioco..."; is this an another example of anglo-saxons messing up other peoples languages? And how do you say it? (I'd say "Jzeeohkoh", but thats just me). Moonraker12 11:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pronounce "joke-oh". The i is there to give the g a soft pronunciation, and is not pronounced separately. Kind of the converse to how English uses u to give g a hard pronunciation in words like "guest". 91.107.148.132 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In Italian, it's pronounced more like English "JAW-co". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.219.179 (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Guioco" is clearly an error. However, there is a valid spelling variation: Gioco Piano (without the "u"), which is how the name of the opening is spelled in modern standard Italian. However, for some reason, the spelling "giuoco" is overwhelmingly more common in English-language chess literature -- perhaps because the name was imported into English so long ago. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Variations
The Jerome gambit? Seriously? You might as well list all legal moves for White if you are listing this one. I'd recommend it be removed as you'll never see this played by anyone over 1600 FIDE in a tournament game. Your avegare club player would beat a GM who tried this opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.126.147 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the text here to make it easier to follow. There's probably a better way to do it, but hopefully this'll do for now. I've not checked the play; it isn't a line in the books I've seen (though they're pretty old books). 194.176.105.40 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the line e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3 Qf6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's an obscure variation. We are not into that level or detail here. 4...Qf6 is played less then 1% of the time in that position. And while Yusapov(?) may of played that move once I can't see any reason to cover 4...Qf6, when 4....Nf6,4...Qe7,4...d6 and 4...Bb6 and all far more common. ChessCreator (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then why don't we mention why it's played so infrequently? It's an obvious move without an obvious drawback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the same position? It blocks in the Knight, gives up the possibility of d5, puts the queen on a square where it will likely be attacked by Bg5. According to chessgames.com it's the worse scoring move that's been played more then once in that position. ChessCreator (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also prevents d4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Italian Game
The page "Italian Game" redirects here; it looks like it was merged in May this year. The books I’ve read make a distinction between the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano; the Italian Game is all play after 3.Bc4, so includes Two knights Defence (3…Nf6) and the Hungarian Defence (3…Be7) while the Giuoco Piano is just the play after 3…Bc5. This also agrees with the wikibook pages on chess openings. In any event the Giuoco Piano page only discusses play after 3…Bc5, so I was intending to open up the Italian Game page again.Does anyone have any strong objection to this? Moonraker12 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Italian Game and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 5. 64.231.242.114 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I’ve read the discussion on the link, but I can’t say I’m any closer to an answer to my question.

I accept that the terms Italian Game and Giuoco Piano are often used as synonyms (though different books have it different ways round; is it Italian Game (Giuoco Piano) or G.P (Italian)?) But there’s no consensus, that I can see. Other books do make the distinction, with Italian covering everything after 3.Bc4, and G.P just the play after 3…Bc5 (I’m referring, from memory, to The Italian Game by Harding & Botterill, and Batsford Chess Openings).

And, (second point) one of those sources is WP itself, on the chess pages (Chess openings, Open games) and in Wikibooks (I’ve been doing a bit of work there, but the pages were there already)

The problem (third point) is that if G.P is to be the only page for this, then it is deficient/incomplete as it only contains play after 3…Bc5, and there are no easy links to the Hungarian Defence or the 2 Knights.

The most elegant solution, to my mind, is to have a page like Open games for the Italian Game /3.Bc4, with a diagram, thumbnail sketch and link for each of the main branches. The alternative seems to be to change everything else to fit.

So again, does anyone have any strong objections to me doing that? Moonraker12 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objections. Several months ago I tried to clarify whether the Italian Game is the GP, or everything after 3. Bc4, and I was not able to get a definitive answer. I hope you can clear it up.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections at all here - go for it, and I'll help where I can.  E LIMINATOR JR  17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Guioco Piano by Gufeld and Stesko says that the GP "is a branch of the Italian Game". In contrast, Italian Game and Evans Gambit by Pinski only gives GP, Evans Gambit, and a short chapter on the "Hungarian and other sidelines". Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the old discussion linked above, five of the six references I checked equated Italian with GP, only one included other third moves by Black. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also now have another reference - Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess. It equates the GP and Italian, so my books are six to one in favor of GP (including Evans gambit) = Italian. Bubba73 (talk), 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll have a go at it over the next few days. Do you know, is there any way of looking at the old page? I don't know if it still exists somewhere. Moonraker12 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Game&action=history. If you simply try to go to Italian Game, you'll be redirected to the G.P. page.  You can get to the redirect page itself by clicking on the Italian Game link at the top of the page in the message that tells you you've been redirected. Quale 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; it looks like this isn't the first time this line's been followed. Moonraker12 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, done; I've left some further comments on the name thing there. Moonraker12 12:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gioco Piano
Giuoco Piano?, no it's Gioco Piano, Giuoco means nothing. --84.42.196.104 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I always thought, and my Collins Gem confirms the word is "Gioco" meaning game. Also, Italian Wikipedia describes the opening as Gioco Piano, see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partita_di_gioco_piano. However, most of the chess references I can find list it as "Guioco Piano". Can someone explain? 82.1.57.47 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No explanation but an observation that the 'Giuoco Piano' spelling is widespread in other wiki languages.    SunCreator (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, after some research, I can answer my own question. Back in the 17th century, the Italian word for game was "giuoco", but since then it has elided into "gioco". Hence, Italian speakers call the chess opening Gioco Piano, while the rest of the world use the name Giuoco Piano, because that's what it was called when the opening was first explored. Incidentally, it was/is pronounced "ju-ocko"/"jocko" depending on which century you prefer, but definitely NOT "gee-oh-ko". 82.1.57.47 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also "Guioco". ("In this book the spelling Giuoco (in Giuoco Piano) has been used, but Guioco and Gioco are also seen." Bibliography/Authors Note) --IHTS (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I always thought "guioco" was just an error, the "gi" combination represents the "j" sound in Italian so that would make it "gwee-oko" instead of "joko". But then I see even the scholarly Staunton spelled it "guioco". Don't know if any Italian would spell it that way. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Diagram
The diagram over "Main line (Greco Attack) Position after 7...Nxe4" looks very wrong to me. If this is a diagram of what I think it is, there should not be a black pawn at e5, and there should be a white one at d4. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong position, but in that case the article seems very misleading. Could someone fix this? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed! Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate line
The article states that 9...Ne5 is interesting, and then gives the line 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 f5 12.Qxc4 d6 as a response. While this is probably correct play for black, it seems to me that 11...Ncd6 is more likely, leading to 12. Qxg7 Qf6 13. Qxf6 Nxf6 14. Re1+ Nfe4 15. Nd2 f5 16. f3 O-O 17. fxe4 Re8 with good play for white. Is this worth mentioning? John Nowak (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Piano = quiet ?
I thought the italian word "piano" ment more something like calm !? 83.249.44.130 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is, Guioco Piano means "quiet game". The 4.d3 lines are quiet, but the others can be pretty wild.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is true that "quiet" is not an exact equivalent of the Italian word "piano", which is related to the word "plane" and usually means something like "flat, smooth, level", but in this context the traditional English translation used in reliable sources is "quiet game" so this is what we should be using on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the correct translation is "plain", which is to say "simple". "Quiet game" is a mis-translation, popularized by English chess books from authors that didn't know Italian.
 * These passed into the internet, mostly through Wikipedia probably, spreading the confusion. You should correct this. 2600:1007:A000:A582:BD5E:7F53:9234:2B78 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My proposed correction "plain game" was removed. The previous comment (from 2018) talks about reliable sources: I'm not sure what a reliable source is in this context: a very reliable source in chess may well be not-so-reliable in translation. And in fact, "quiet game" simply doesn't convey the meaning of the term, even if it's proposed by dozens of english books (which, crucually, are not italian books). Specifically: "piano" is either an adverb or an adjective. When it's an adverb, it means "quietly" (not "quiet"), "slowly", "gently" etc. When it's an adjective it means "flat" or "simple", "easy", "plain", but never means "quiet". I know that the classical music terminology tradition adds to the confusion, but again, as an adjective, "piano" doesn't mean "quiet". Now: in "Giuoco piano", "piano" is an adjective and not an adverb (the opposite would be funny, to italian speakers (like myself)), and its meaning is not "quiet". Lastly: the adjective "piano" also means "regular", "normal" as opposed to any kind of variant or complication, which is exactly the meaning the current footnote n.1 points to (no gambits).--Giulio.t (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The origin of the opening itself, as well as the origin of its name, are from about the beginning of the 16th century. Can anyone determine what the meaning of "giuoco piano" was at that time?  I know that the meanings of words shift over the course of hundreds of years.
 * Wikipedia is not an independent authority. We are obliged to follow the usage of existing authorities, and especially English-language authorities, in the naming of the openings.  See WP:OR and WP:RS. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do give a translation, alongside the official name, it's a matter of linguistics, not of chess. If the wikipedia principle is to stick to authorities, fine, but you need to choose the right ones. English-language chess authorities are not italian language aurhorities (and I'd argue they probably have little-to-no expertise in the field) so by the same principle their translation doesn't deserve to be spread worldwide by wikipedia. Why not remove it?
 * As for the meaning shift: yes, someone can determine what "piano" used to mean in the 16th century. Giulio.t (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For jargon use of "piano" in that era, you can look to music. For an English translation of "piano", look at Dynamics (music) or consider fortepiano. Quale (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that the translation traditionally given in English chess literature ("quiet game") is inaccurate and something like "plain game" (i.e. a non-gambit) would be more accurate. Yes "piano" translates as "quiet" in the context of music, but maybe this isn't the correct translation in the context of chess. Nevertheless "quiet game" is what the English language sources say. If we can find a source discussing the original Italian meaning we can cite this, writing something like "while traditionally translated as 'quiet game' in English, the original means was.... ". Until then we're stuck with "quiet game", which is what the English language RS's say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. First: jargon is field-specific, by definition. Second: on a music page, "piano" means "play quietly". It's an adverb. In "Giuoco piano", it's of course an adjective, and that has a different meaning. Giulio.t (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find a good solution that acknowledges the original meaning of the Italian phrase. I've found The Oxford English Dictionary, which gives the literal translation as "plain game" and cites Sarratt (1813) at the internet archive. This is the Sarratt citation. Among the 18th century Italian players who used the term "Giuoco Piano" are Salvio, Lolli and Ponziani, all of which can be found at google books or internet archive. Salvio may well have been the originator of the term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out, in this context "piano" means "plain", not "quiet". "Piano" only means "quiet(ly)" as an adverb, not as an adjective. You should really fix it, Wikipedia should not contribute to propagate errors. It's not even a traditional translation or anything like that., just an error made in some English language chess books that happened to be the ones you consulted. 2600:1007:A024:F16B:DD:4707:CCD5:C37 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above by User:Quale, "piano" means "quiet" as an adjective in music; see Dynamics (music). Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no special italiano for music. Secondly, no it does not. It means "quietly", as an adverb, because the various "piano" "forte" etc. are commands addressed to the conductor, or the player. So "piano" means "play [this part] quietly".
 * Fix this thing, everyone playing chess and speaking English keeps repeating this error, likely based on this wikipedia page, itself based on a random book whose author just didn't bother learning Italian properly. 2600:1007:A001:67C2:CD40:AD55:975C:A8C5 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation
In Italian, 'giuoco' would be pronounced as (juoko) (as noted above, the modern word for 'play' is gioco instead of giuoco). This article says that it would be pronunciated as 'choko'. Is this an error, or is this the way this loan-word is actually pronounced in English? (I assume 'piano' is pronounced like the name of the music instrument and not like the original Italian word.) Anyway, 'choko' now links to the IPA symbols but does not use them. In IPA, that would be. Bever (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation element was introduced by this post. I think it would be an improvement if you boldly change it to what you think is right (or to even what you think is "best guess" what is right!). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the whole truth that "giuoco" is pronounced [dʒuoko] in Italian. Italians spelled it "guioco" and pronounced it [dʒoko] for a very long time before they adopted the modern spelling, and the old spelling remained an acceptable alternative until well into the 20th century. In terms of how should you pronounce it in English as the name of a chess opening, which is the question for this article, well I think the article should offer both alternatives. In practice [dʒoko] is common, and the users of it can point to modern Italian to justify it as no kind of mistake. The difficulty is citing an authoritative source, and unfortunately chess authors tend to lack strength in linguistics. Choko or [tʃoko], on the other hand, is a mistake.
 * Doubtless many people do pronounce "piano" like the name of the the musical instrument, but that is also a mistake. Ivan Viehoff (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pianissimo
The comments on this section are suddenly looking dated. It seems like I am seeing this line in all the super-GM tournaments, usually with the move order 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3. Not sure where to start in updating it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 is arguably the main line these days, but it can also be reached by 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3. The pianissimo proper is 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 I think. The other fork is whether white plays b4 and chases the bishop or just plays Bb3-c2 Ruy Lopez style, which seems to be the modern GM practice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyway the reason I had a section for 5.d4 is that I was planning to create a corresponding section for 5.d3. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense but it said 4.d4 and was in the wrong place, wrong level of heading, etc. Sometimes nothing goes right.  Bruce leverett (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Italian Game (revisited)
From the lead: The name "Italian Game" is used by some authors (Pinski 2005:5); however, that name is also used to describe all openings starting 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, including 3...Nf6 (the Two Knights Defence) and other less common replies. That is absolutely true. But so far this text has been stated in the context of an explanatory or informational aside rather than as an alternate id name for the topic. If we want to do the latter, then we'll need to make in bold (Italian Game) rather than the current quotes ("Italian Game") and add as synonym in the Infobox. But see p.p.s. below. --IHTS (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

p.s. In addition to Pinski as above, Harding & Botterill's book The Italian Game does the same (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4; covering Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Two Knights Defence, Hungarian Defence). Meanwhile, Hopper & Whyld have no entry for Italian Game. --IHTS (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

p.p.s. And there is already article Italian Game. --IHTS (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Hooper & Whyld are in the minority here. Do we have any other references for "Italian Opening"? I don't think I've seen that name used anywhere else.  It's interesting that Hooper & Whylde do not give a name to the position after 3.Bc4.  This is probably an accurate reflection of the common terminology in 1984 when the fist edition was published.
 * There are already two references in the article for the name "Italian Game":
 * and in my library there are also
 * | pages=129}}
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * | pages=129}}
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I w/ agree w/ all of that. (Even my Harding & Botterill book, p. 1, first para, states after 3...Bc5: "Thus begins the Italian Game, or Giuoco Piano, proper.") The problem here is, as mentioned, we already have article Italian Game, and since OCC H&W has heretofore generally been considered a "Bible" re authority/RS by WP:CHESS, it was a handy and justifiable way to differentiate. So with that gone, how do you propose to differentiate (naming Giuoco Piano also Italian Game, when 3.Bc4 is presumably properly already identified as Italian Game), to avoid general readership confusion? (E.g. the current Italian Game article has this hatnote: "For the Italian Opening, see Giuoco Piano." My presumption is when a name is presented in bold in article lead, it implies an alternative article id suitable for a REDIRECT.) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article needs a hatnote. A hat would be appropriate if Italian Game was a redirect to this article, but it isn't.  The two usages of "Italian Game" are explained adequately both in this article and at Italian Game.   Quale (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Agree w/ the current two article statuses. --IHTS (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)