Talk:Queen's Gambit Declined

Semi-Slav
Should Semi-Slav Defense be listed in the bulleted list in the first paragraph? Bubba73 (talk), 04:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say no, because the other openings in the first paragraph list out the different names after Black's second move. The defining moves of the Semi-Slav are not on the board before move 3 at the earliest. The line is mentioned further down in the article however, along with the Tarrasch. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree. Bubba73 (talk), 14:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 isn't a Semi-Slav, and I've edited that and propose to do more in future. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it isn't a Semi-Slav then what is it? The names are only conventions, after all, and I'm in favour of broad interpretations wherever possible so that we don't end up with a bunch of rare sequences of moves having to be given their own separate names when they have no independent significance. 91.107.155.178 (talk) 02:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting Out: Slav and Semi-Slav calls it the "Triangle Variation". Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lars Schandorff also calls it that in Playing the Queen's Gambit -- A Grandmaster Guide. Krakatoa (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Tarrasch Defence
As I've also noted on the Tarrasch Defence page, I don't believe the Semi-Tarrasch belongs there; its place is with the main-line QGD family. Hushpuckena (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. Literature tends to cover the Semi-Tarrasch as a QGD variation rather than a line of the Tarrasch. I think I am the one guilty of misplacing the coverage in the Tarrasch article (right from the first revision). BTW, a big thank you for the improvements you have made to these articles! Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Organizing Variations
I have done some changes to make it more readable. However I think a better thing would be if we gave the part on "Black avoids 3...Nf6" its own section then the main line would be 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 and all the different variations would get their own diagram and subsection. Does it sound good?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.227.81 (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Organizing Material
I think we should disperse the material in "Strategic Overview" into the relevant variations. This would make much more sense for the reader: "This is variation X and here are its strategical ideas" as opposed to now when it is separate sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.227.81 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT the QGD unless Black plays 2. e6!!!
The Slav etc. is NOT a part of the QGD!!!! Anonywiki (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. For example, The Oxford Companion to Chess, p. 22: "Austrian Defence, 77, in the QUEEN'S GAMBIT Declined", and p. 365: "Semi-Slav Defence, 134, in the QUEEN'S GAMBIT Declined".  Also Ward's Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined treats the Symmetrical Variation and the Marshall.  I think I understand your point—Writers in some or even many contexts may take a limited view of what they mean by QGD (primarily the Orthodox V. for example), but others may have a more expansive classification in mind.  For that reason I am restoring the previous version of the article.  I suspect that you were Special:Contributions/24.80.227.81 who made similar edits in November 2009.  Quale (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, MCO-15 gives the Slav and Semi-Slav as part of the Queen's Gambit, but not QGD. IT gives 2...e6 for the QGD.  My point is that MCO-15 is much newer than the Oxford Companion.  MCO-15 says that the Slav became the most popular in the last decade or so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think reverting was correct. You can't say that 2... e6 is essential when you could for instance transpose from 1 ... e6, via 2 ... d5 to a QGD. There are a myriad of other transpositions too - e.g. there is a trend these days for White to play 1. or 2. Nf3 ... clearly this gives Black the scope to delay ... e6, such that we might also get 3... e6 in a QGD. For me the principle is therefore clear. As given by Brace (pp. 231-232), it [the QGD] is "any opening sequence in which Black declines the immediate offer of White's pawn in the Queen's Gambit". The actual words (Queen's Gambit or Queen's Gambit Declined) are of course nowadays regularly omitted from an opening's description, because it is enough to say Albin Counter Gambit, or whatever. We know what it is without needing to be reminded of it's root each time. Because of this omission, it is easy to see that some confusion has crept in and it has become blurred as to whether certain openings with their own individual identity and increased popularity (like the Slav) were ever part of the QGD. I do agree that QG (rather than QGD) gets used for the Slav in a lot of opening manuals (Nunn's too), but I think this is just individual authors applying their own classifications to keep the QGD Orthodox lines distinct from everything else. Does this change in modern usage constitute a change in the definition? It could certainly be argued, but I'd personally rather stay true to Brace's definition; there is a simple logic behind it which disappears once you start to have exceptions. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The argument of tranposing into another defence is no argument at all. The Philidor's Defence can transpose into the Pirc Defence. This doesn't mean the Pirc Defence is a part of Philidor's Defence.

The FIDE-endorsed ECO is a vastly more definitive source than the "Oxford Companion to Chess". However I did find some ECO codes which had "QGD" next to them on an ECO website. So I won't dispute the reversion now.

However, if you buy a book on the Queen's Gambit Declined, you wouldn't expect to see Slav positions. http://www.amazon.com/Queens-Gambit-Declined-Matthew-Sadler/dp/1857442563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298487975&sr=8-1#reader_1857442563 (look at the book preview and you can see everything begins with 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6, the most negative review complains about the book not mentioning more openings in the QGD.... after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6... which is the accepted QGD in common use). People would complain if they bought a QGD book and saw specifically Slav positions. Look also at the preview of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Starting-Out-Queens-Gambit-Declined/dp/1857444264/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1298487975&sr=8-7 You shouldn't expect anything other than 2. ...e6 if you view a tutorial or buy a book on the QGD. However I would accept the ECO as the definitive source.

In the usual nomenclature though the QGD is a part of the QG, it is a sub-category. The QG is played by White on move 2. Then Black has a chance to play: 1) QGD, 2) QGA 3) Slav 4) Chigorin's 5) Misc. This is how I always thought of it, and I would think how most people think of it. The MCO-14 also has it this way. I am a bit disappointed that the ECO has it this way to be honest.

For this reason I will just mention something to the effect that the QGD is very often regarded as 2. ...e6. Thank you for alerting me to this. Anonywiki (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

'Confusing' tag
Hi, made some copyedits to lead, wondering if okay to remove 'Confusing' tag now. (Or, was the tag referring to confusion in sections deeper in the article?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've cleared up the lead. I've removed the confused tag, if is it required then whoever adds it can explain why. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Berg Defense
The article mentions the above captioned Berg Defense. Would this be the variation 3...Bb4 itself please? It is not so clear from the text it could be taken to mean that it is a synonym for the Queen's Gambit. May I also please ask from where the word "Berg" comes from? Thank you in advance. Joe Gatt (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The text about the "Berg" Defense should do more to distinguish it from the Ragozin -- after all, 4. Nf3 Bb4 5. Qa4+ is not a very dangerous line from Black's perspective -- yet 4. Qa4+ Nc6 5. Nf3 is being described as bad because Black is blocking his c-pawn. Any flaws in the line should be described -- but a transposition to a Ragozin cannot be it. Chesspride 216.144.161.51 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Exchange variation
I think there is a minor error in the text: This pawn structure gives White the opportunity to either advance his pawns in the centre by means of Nge2, f2–f3, followed by e2–e4, or .... Nge2 is not possibly prior to e2-e4. I think the fix is just to remove the Nge2 move. Most other articles on the QCD Exchange just mention central or Q-side pawn pushes. Inizen (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)