Talk:Greco Defence

To be clear, this page needs references not just from some article, but something to establish its relationship to Gioachino Greco, not to mention some real assertion of its notability. Perhaps there is some significance from it being historically noted since 1620, but without any mention of that, exactly how is apparent to the reader? Right now, this is primarily a discussion on how to play the opening, with the only thing besides that being well, a mention of some blind-folded game of dubious significance. Try to fix that. FrozenPurpleCube 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article cited clearly said that Greco analyzed the opening in 1620. That establishes the relationship to Greco. The chesscafe article is written by an expert (Garry Lane) who provides some further analysis. That means there exists two sources independent of the opening: Greco and Lane. I am not a big fan of the primary notability criterion but two independent sources means that the opening passes it. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the article is not a how-to on how to play the opening, and we have been through that debate already on Sicilian Defense where your position that the opening articles are how-tos were rejected. "it is a favorite opening among novice players, it has also been used by people who according to Lane "should know better" tells about the openings popularity (relevant), is not a how-to (in fact none of the article is), and does not refer to the blindfold game of dubious importance. Also, I suggest that if you have aproblem with the article as it stands, then you should try to "fix that". Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in the article about the origins of the name. Just a suggestion of an amusing line.  That's not saying as much as you think, since it's a really minimal reference.  So, please, try to get better references.  Especially, there's still no indication of the importance, and while I would be glad to fix it, I don't have anything to fix it with.  I'm sorry, but I don't have every single book on chess, there's nothing I could find online that's substantial, and I don't even know if it's worth fixing.  So pardon me for not bothering to go hit up a library.  If you do, then you can respond to my concerns by addressing them.  If you don't, then you can leave up the tag and hope somebody else reads this discussion and tries to fix it.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still don't think the references are adequate, so I've gone to WP:3 to see a third opinion. Especially since as I see it, the reference is not adequate at all for the real problem which is the notability of the subject of this article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion: I have to agree that the article should be rewritten to state why the Greco Defence is notable enough to be named. It doesn't have to be anything major, just give a reason a Wikipedia reader (as opposed to a "Wiki-Chess" reader) should care. Maybe it's because it's a favorite opening among novice players? Move that statement to the opening paragraph, and cite the quote (actually, cite the quote anyway). Was is used in a very famous game? The "George Koltanowski" game mentioned doesn't seem particularly famous, although another reference might prove it so. Is/was it preferred by any famous players? Name them. Is it just because Gioacchino Greco documented it? Find out why this particular opening got named after him, instead of others he documented, and mention in half a sentence who Greco was. Does it have more history than just Greco in 1620? Mention it. Does it even have any sort of reputation like the other two openings linked from this article?


 * Also, the article has only one reference, and that reference seems to have supplied all the information in the article. Add more references! Something on the reason this opening got named after Greco would be good, and a reference for that last sentence is really needed. Even a "good"/"common" refutation or two, well supported by references, wouldn't be amiss. Anomie 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
The article tends to have a tone mocking the opening. Sure, premature development of the Q is contrary to opening principles, but that alone is insufficient to throw eggs at the opening and ridicule it. (For example, the Parham Attack, 2. Qh5, has been used by GM Hikaru Nakamura in high-level tournaments.)

I have a lot of respect for this opening, and let me tell you why: I played a postal game in the 80s against a Master from Chicago who used it against me, he was admittedly experimenting, and later explained his idea was strongpoint maintenance of e5. (In almost&mdash;maybe every&mdash;e4/e5 opening, White pretty much can force the liquidation of Black's e5-pawn by d2–d4 at some point.  If Black doesn't exchange, there are always typical drawbacks waiting for him.  The point of this Master's experiment was strongpoint maintenance without the typical drawbacks.  It was a deep, inventive & pragmatic strategy akin to French Defense, where Black retains his centeral-pawn representation.)

So it doesn't deserve dismissal through a mocking tone (a bias which exists still, even after my recent edits). I think the problem is same as for Parham and other similar openings – too early dismissal based on old, restrictive thinking. WP shouldn't encourage this kind of conventional thinking, even if it exists in reliable sources, but should maintain NPOV always. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. For example, I'm about to remove the Koltanowski game example. Why? Of what value is this game? Koltanowski's opponent blundered, giving away his Q. Is a subtle suggestion being made thru this example, that if you play this opening, you'll likely get crushed? Phooey. (I guarantee you, my postal game referred to above was hard fought, complex and difficult game w/ chances for both sides. The two examples in the article are really offensive to the notion of that kind of play potential.)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, in no way is the Kolty game a fair reflection of the opening. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Thx for your feedback. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)