Talk:Queen's Gambit

3.e3
The trap 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3 "only" wins a piece, not a rook. Black can play 6...Nc6 7.Qxc6+ Bd7. Still Dbenbenn should be credited for his wikifying of the page. 129.177.61.123 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * My bad. I'm not a chess expert.  If you haven't done so already, feel free to clarify this point within the article.  dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are not a chess expert what are you doing editing a chess article in an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.251.118 (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What if black defends the pawn with his bishop : 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. e3 be2 ? The pawn is hard to win back and the bishop also prevents white trying qc3.
 * First, if White wants his pawn back instantly after 3....Be6 he can play 4.Qa4+. On the other hand if White just develops normally and stays a pawn down he should have enough compensation. The bishop on e6 is misplaced, blocking the e-pawn and if White gets a knight to g5 or f4 it will probably have to move and let go of the pawn. When I checked this database and entered the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6, I found 96 games, in fact Black has won a fair number of them. Sadly this database is prone to downtime, if you get 0 games it is probably down for maintenance. Sjakkalle 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC).

After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 is the main line) Be6?! (3...e5! with the idea 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Be6= is usual) 4.Qa4+(?), I believe Black can keep the pawn with 4...c6! and if 5 Bxc4?? b5! Sjakkalle is right about the possibility of White playing normally instead, treating the line as a true gambit where Black's bishop is misplaced. If White wants the pawn back ASAP, I think 4.Na3 does the trick. Krakatoa 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 Be6!? 4. Ne2 gives good compensation for white. Eventually, white will get his pawn back and that eventually is actually quite soon, especially after Qa4+ and/or Na3, both pressuring the c pawn. If black still tries to keep the pawn, either he/she will lose material or lose time (be behind in development). After 2... dxc4 3. e3, black should play 3...e5!, taking control of the center. Now, if white plays the central variation, the pawn on e4 would block the h1 to a8 diagonal so 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3. Anyways, white gets good compensation no matter what. It is also known that it is very risky for black to accept the queen's gambit. His best choice would be to decline it with 2... c6, the Slav defense (though 2...e6, the orthodox variation works just fine. 2...Nc6 is an interesting try as well). And by the way, the database that was posted a few posts before is not there anymore, so people, don't click the link or it will say "page not found". Person who made this post is anonymous and doesn't have a wikipedia account. 04:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC).

Contested move request
''The following request to move a page has been added to Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.'' —Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Queen's Gambit -> Queen's gambit Rationale: Naming conventions &mdash; game moves are not proper nouns (except inasmuch as they contain one, e.g. "Johnson's bluff", versus "johnson's bluff" or more to the point "Johnson's Bluff"). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All other articles in Category:Chess openings are capitalised, suggesting that they are all treated as proper nouns. --Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because a mistake has been made in more than one article doesn't make it a non-mistake. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator is incorrect: "Queen's Gambit" is a proper noun and is correctly captitalized. The page should not be moved. Quale 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Game names themselves are not proper nouns (e.g. "chess, billiards and hockey", not "Chess, Billiards and Hockey"), so elements in the games are not proper nouns either. To suggest that they are is akin to suggesting that though "the human body" is not a proper noun, its parts, ailments, etc. are ("Knees, Blood and Arthritis").  Let's not be silly. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. Look up Queen's Gambit in any reference.  It is always capitalized.  It's not a question of silliness, it's a question of correctness.  I should note that in the past (through the early 20th century) it was common for writers to capitalize the piece names themselves, "Queen" instead of "queen".  This is no longer common.  The names of opening variations remain capitalized always, and there's no evidence that this will change.  Quale 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You actually point out, unintentionally, why this argument is fallacious. It formerly was very common in English to "Germanize" nouns by capitalizing them just for the heck of it (any review of turn-of-last-century advertising materials will clearly demonstrate this). The somewhat common continued capitalization of things like "Queen's Gambit" in the context of chess is simply a lingering holdover of this otherwise mostly abandoned phenomenon (even abandoned by other sports and games; no one writes "Massé Shot" or "Hole-in-One" any longer), and the fact that chess fans like to continue to do it doesn't make it grammatical at all, any more than it is grammatical to spell "you" as "U" just because millions of Internet gamers like to do that. Chess's horse is not so high that articles about it on Wikipedia can ignore English grammar standards in favor of fannish quirks. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I pointed it out quite intentionally.  You need to get off your high horse.  Articles in WikiPedia are titled with the names which are most commonly used in English.  Chess opening names are not just occasionally capitalized or often capitalized, they are always capitalized.  This is absolutely universal.  Provide some contrary evidence or go away—you are tedious. Quale 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Found all of the following in about 90 seconds; not exactly "universal", eh? Granted none of these are reference works, but if I turn up this many breakings with 1800s-style tradition, I'd been utterly shocked if at least one reliable book on the topic didn't also use proper modern grammar. That said, I have better things to do that spend hours in a library to prove a point that will probably get shouted down anyway because no one is going to read this other than chess fans who tend to be traditionalists; grammar sticklers are unlikely to notice this discussion and back up my side of the debate.  I've said my piece and made my point, and am moving on.
 * "Queen's gambit"; interestingly, it does this with all openings other than those that are proper names, such as the Ruy Lopez (see below)
 * "Used against the queen's gambit..."
 * "An irregular acceptance of the queen's gambit leads to..."
 * "Queen's gambit..."
 * "Used against the queen's gambit..."
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked one of the links, namely http://www.johnpratt.com/items/chess/menu.html and found on that page "Two Knights Defense", "Four Knights opening", "Center Game", and "Giuoco Piano", all capitalized as is customary except for the Four Knights opening, which should be Four Knights Game or Four Knights Opening. It's likely that "queen's gambit" on that page is a typo, as is not surprising given that there's no evidence that the page had any professional editing done on it.  I suspect the same is true for the other pages you list.  Google guesstimates about 440,000 hits for "queen's gambit".  Although google hit estimates aren't very accurate, there are a lot of uses of Queen's Gambit on the internet so it isn't surprising to find some typos and some people who aren't familiar with the customary orthography used in English for chess opening names.  In addition to all chess references (see chess opening for some examples), even non-chess references use Queen's Gambit.  See the 1984 Collier's Encyclopedia for one example. Quale 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I emphatically agree with Quale. What's next -- the Ruy lopez? Krakatoa 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That really is silly. Lopez, like any other surname, is a proper noun, by definition. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Quale and Krakatoa. Virtually all chess related literature treats the name of chess openings as proper nouns, and they should therefore be capitalized. OK, if Ruy Lopez was a bad example, then compare it to "New York City", as opposed to "New York city". Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Quayle, Karkatoa, and Sjakkalle. I checked 8 or 10 authoratative paper books, and they all used caps for Gambit, Opening, Defense, and Game in the names of openings. Bubba73 (talk), 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with myself, you all need to get out more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.110.98 (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Winnability (if that's a word)
Doesn't d4 win more than e4? That's pretty significant, seeing as e4 is commonly perceived as the most popular opening. My 2 Cents&#39; Worth (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You are essentially correct on both counts. 1.e4 is played more than 1.d4, but 1.d4 scores almost 2% better. See ChessGames.com Opening Explorer. In ChessGames' database, 1.d4 actually wins 0.5% less than 1.e4, but 1.d4 loses almost 3.7% less than 1.e4. 1.c4 is the best-scoring major opening move. (Some unusual opening moves - 1.g4, 1.h3, and the dreaded Sodium Attack (1.Na3) - score much better in the database, but in far fewer games.) Krakatoa (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that percentage sounds right. I read that d4 is more successful than e4, but only because of the power of the Sicilian Defence for black. I prefer d4 openings in general.My 2 Cents&#39; Worth (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The slight difference doesn't mean you have to change your full strategy. First of all, the Sicilian Defense is equally powerful and sharp for white as well as black (look at the pawn storms white sends down the kingside. White doesn't just do that in the Dragon Variation. 1. e4 openings are for the people who like to attack from the beginning up or for white, try a lot harder to exploit his/her first-move advantage (like the Ruy Lopez). This is especially because the light-squared bishop and knight are both good at targeting the weak f7 square (that it why Bc4 is often played). On the Ruy Lopez, however, white "attacks" black's undefended knight. This too leads to active positions. The sicilian defense only makes the attack-counterattack strategy more unbalanced, so black may have more wins, but not really by much. 1. d4 openings are where white seeks a more safer and positional advantage (it is not true that 1. d4 lacks attacking and unbalancing openings, while 1. e4 has all attacking and unbalancing openings), especially with the Queen's Gambit Declined and the Indian Defenses (now the King's Indian and Grunfeld Defense are unique in their own way, but once again, they tend to be positional - maybe not the Grunfeld). The dutch defense has a character pf its own, but is nevertheless rather positional too, but still unbalanced (especially with black's pawn on f5. The "unbalancedment" caused the Staunton Gambit once to be feared, but now it can be neutralized easily, but the Dutch Defense overall is good). The Benoni is once again positional, with black trying to use his own position to advantage, as white has a space advantage. The Benko Gambit is also positional. But nevertheless, never be biased about 1. d4 and 1. e4 openings (even 1. Nf3 and 1. c4 are good and so is 1. f4).

Nitpicking
"The Queen's Gambit is divided into two major categories based on Black's response: The Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA) and the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD)"

This is not true, since (as discussed below) the QGD is specifically the ...e6 category, so the Queen's Gambit is divided into ten categories (those listed, plus "other" for all other legal 2nd moves). It's debatable precisely which ones are "major". I don't have any statistics to hand, but surely the Slav is at least as important as the QGA? 2.25.120.18 (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You're definitely right about the importance of the Slav. In terms of practical play both the Slav and the Orthodox line (commonly called just the QGD) are more important than the QGA.  (Considered theoretically rather than practically this probably isn't true, as if Black was assured to get good chances by accepting there might not be as great a need to find good ways to decline.)  The definition of the QGD has been discussed on Talk:Queen's Gambit Declined.  My view there is that it is reasonable to use the expansive definition of QGD for simple classification purposes, but I understand that often (maybe most often) the narrower definition is used.  The expansive definition reported in the article is used by reliable sources, so unless with think those uses are insignificant (undue weight, and that might be the case here) it should stay in the article.  If we make a change it wouldn't make sense to say that the QG is divided into 10 or 11 major categories, so the statement would need to be reworded significantly or be removed.  It may be that the wording here could be improved without complete replacement, the QGD article says "In its broadest sense, the Queen's Gambit Declined is any variation of the Queen's Gambit in which Black declines to capture White's pawn on c4. Variations other than the Orthodox Line have their own names and are usually treated separately."   When I was growing up the ...e6 lines were called the Orthodox Defense, but today it's probably a lot more common to simply call them the QGD.  Quale (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is 2...g6 really Alekhine's Defense? I think its dubious to call it that.
The text lists the rare 2...g6 as Alekhine's Defense. I can find no reference to this on the web. In my database of 4,300,954 games using ChessDB, there's one game by Alekhine with this. (Stahlberg vs Alekhine, 1037) which ended in a draw. In fact, there are only 60 games in total, which is 0.00139504% of the database. In other words, it is very rare, and not noteworthy at all.

Has someone just looked in a database, seen Alekhine was the highest rated player to play it, then decided to call it his Defense? That does not seem a logical thing to do, and there are no references given.

Unless someone can come up with some better evidence, I will remove the name 86.129.194.86 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it in Benjamin's book Unorthodox Openings. He labelled it "Queen's Gambit Declined: Alekhine Idea". Will add the ref. --IHTS (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)