Talk:Polish Defense

Polish Defense Deferred
A google search suggests that 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 b5 is sometimes called the Polish Defense Deferred, so I put that in the article and added a diagram. Quale 01:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Importance tag removed
I removed the importance tag. The edit summary I used points out the use of the opening in the 1966 World Championship final. Moreover, there exists a whole book written on the opening,, but I don't have it unfortunately. My MCO has gone missing (that's about as horrible as the pope losing his bible, but there you have it) so can someone check that the article here fits with that source, and change it if necessary? Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not convinced one single match is enough on its bare existence to establish its notability, especially since the person lost. This applies even at a world championship match.  Really, there were 22 games in that championship alone.  That tends to dilute the meaningfulness of any one particular defense or opening, even when it was the final one.   Was there significant commentary or other response to the use of the defense in that match?  Noting a specific reaction would be a very convincing way to improve the establishment of notability in this article.  So I'm re-adding the tag.  Get back to me when you've improved it.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, the same applies to the mention of play by Karpov. So he's played that set of moves.  He's probably played dozens of sets of moves.  Seeking either comment by him, or comment by others noting some significance to that play would be appropriate to importance.  For example, if he wrote a book or essay about it.  That'd mean a lot.  Or if he played it in a large number of his games.  Right now, it's just lacking specific explanation as to his play of it, so we can't judge the importance.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FrozenPurpleCube, I hope you take this advice in the spirit in which it is offered. I strongly urge you to stop hectoring Wikipedians like Sjakkalle who far greater experience and respect in the Wikipedia community than you have.  Don't order them around or tell them what to do ("Get back to me when you've improved it.")  As hard as this might be for you to swallow, other Wikipedia contributors do not work for you, nor do they answer to you.  If you wonder why you often provoke negative reactions, you ought to consider your own behavior.  It isn't too late to turn this around, but you've gotten off to a bad start.  Quale 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I'm going to ask you to once against, comment on the content, not the contributor. This is especially important in your case because of your pattern of past personal attacks against me.  That's truly destroyed any shred of respect I might have for you or advice you might have to offer.  Therefore, if you are truly concerned about what I'm saying, I suggest you try WP:WQA instead to let a neutral, uninvolved editor make any suggestions.  Otherwise, stick to the subject of the article.  Thanks.   FrozenPurpleCube 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FrozenPurpleCube--I saw the link to here from WQA. After checking your contributions here and to several related talk pages I think Quale's suggestions are valid and you should follow them. 75.62.7.22 07:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but I'm disinclined to follow the advice of an anonymous IP address since you could be any number of people who decided to log-out and try to anonymously swing support for your side. Pardon me if I seem suspicious, but sockpuppetry is a common problem. FrozenPurpleCube 13:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And no, I'm afraid I don't see the importance of this article having been established yet. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignore this guy - he is now gone. Bubba73 (talk), 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
The article says that the name "Polish Defence" was given by analogy to the "Polish Opening", but then says it was first played by a Polish player. The article Sokolsky Opening has nothing on the origin of the name "Polish Opening". Maybe this is reading between the lines, but it seems reasonable to guess that it's the other way round, the Polish Opening was so-called by analogy to the Polish Defence. Anyone have further evidence for or against this? 91.107.182.78 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Should article be moved to "Polish Defence"? (Since Polish-player origin, also Hooper & Whyld entry "Polish Defence".) --IHTS (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a straightforward case of WP:RETAIN, so probably not? The "Polish player origin" is just historical naming trivia, people who play and study chess openings are of all nationalities, this isn't any more Polish than the Italian Game is specifically Italian.  (Now that I bring this up, boldly removing WikiProject Poland as well - it's just a name, it's not really something Polish.)  SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, just to add on to this, Hooper & Whyld is a British source. RETAIN could be overturned if there was an argument that "Defence" was the international term used everywhere, but a British source using a British spelling isn't evidence of that.  (If all the American chess books used "Defence", it'd be different.)  SnowFire (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely not, as SnowFire says, although the correct reason is very different. MOS:TIES is widely misunderstood and thus widely abused.  It says: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" (emphasis mine).  Poland is not an English-speaking nation, so in an article with strong national ties to Poland there is no valid reason under MOS:ENGVAR to change English varieties (or to change date formats under MOS:DATETIES).  MOS:RETAIN is the applicable rule. Quale (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thx, both! --IHTS (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)