Talk:Semi-Italian Opening

Where to merge that article
So the result of the AfD debate was that this page should be merged indeed, but it was unclear whether this should be in the Italian game or in the Philidor. I am opening this thread to clarify that. I own a book "Everything on The Philidor Defence" from Christian Bauer that states that after "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nc6?! comes back to an inferior version of the Italian game, and is not part of the Philidor anymore" (p.16). SyG (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree not part of Philidor. The consensus to merge was at a point where the article consisted of scant material (really nothing more than a name and defining moves). Could consensus to merge perhaps have been based on that? (The fact the article consisted of virtually no material, was just a reference, and didn't warrant its own article?) After the AfD concluded the article was significantly increased in content, size and scope. Why cannot the article then be considered under those new conditions for carrying its own weight?


 * For example, Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation is not merged with Vienna Game. Why not? It is a rare line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4. Why isn't Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit merged with Four Knights Game? It is also a rarified line: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5. Why isn't Giuoco Piano, Jerome Gambit, a weak and rare line, merged with Giuoco Piano?: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. I'm sure there are many more examples like those. So why should Paris Defence be treated any differently than these, when the article is now at this point of containing respectable content? (What is the criterion for merge, and is it being used consistently? Is it because the three examples given are gambits, and Paris is not? Is it because two of the examples carry colorful names, and Paris does not?)


 * Again at the point of the AfD, Paris had essentially no content. I can understand merge based on insufficiency of meaningful content to claim its own article. But the status of the article is radically different from what it was at the conclusion of the AfD. If merge was based on the context that the article, because of its scant material and being merely a reference, didn't warrant an article, well, that context no longer exists. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * More examples ... Here's a third move Black option of Italian that has its own article: Italian Game, Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5). And another third move Black option with its own article: Italian Game, Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4). (In this article the opening is called "dubious", 3...Nd4 is described as a "weak, time-wasting move", yet the line carries its own article, and at Chess Project Talk, where Paris was discussed for AfD, part of the justfication given was Paris is "just a rare and not very good sideline". It seems several rare, and even "not very good" sidelines already do have their own articles. But Paris was selected by Alekhine, and is a form of the Hungarian Defense acc. Harding/Botterill, and so is different because not in the "weak, dubious" camp, etc.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * p.s. I moved the 3...d6 (Paris) subsection from "Main variations" section to "Uncommon Black third moves" section of Italian Game, where 3...Nd4 (Shilling Gambit) subsection already was. Also added 3...f5 (Rsousseau Gambit) subsection to that section. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these points. The thing is, are there references that call this opening the "Paris Defence" ? Because apart from the notability issue, there is also the question of whether this name really exists at all. SyG (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SyG, as mentioned in the AfD, in book Batsford Chess Openings (BCO), publ. 1982 by American Chess Promotions, authors Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, chapt. "Giuoco Piano (Italian) 2 Knights", p. 308, the move 3...d6 is superscripted with a footnote. The footnote, contained on p. 309, says one and only one thing; it says: "Paris Defence."


 * Also in the AfD, user SubSeven found this online ref to the name, in a book by Pandolfini.
 * The opening goes by other names as well, which I duely noted in the article's infobox. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, my mistake. Thanks for the note. Then it is back to notability. SyG (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * SyG, the AfD result was Keep. The closing admin said Merge is a function of article Talk, not AfD. Nevertheless, there was consensus for Merge at AfD (discussed above). What are you saying? (You like to start all over again from square one?! If so, on what basis?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIU, the closing admin said the article should be merged, but where to merge was not clear. The decision to merge should not be based on content, but on notability. My intent was to discuss where to merge this article, but it seems you are challenging the fact that this article should be merged, am I correct ? SyG (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * SyG, you seem to be ignoring everything I've written and asked you to consider, above. For example, I gave several examples of other minor sidelines (some not so good) that support their own articles, and I asked what the consistent criteria for merge is? (No response.) Also, that the article's content and scope were radically changed since the end of the AfD, and I asked if the former condition (i.e. no content but merely a reference) was perhaps a basis for the consensus to merge. (Again, no response. Do you mean to speak for others and say that its minimal condition at the time of AfD was *not* a factor in recommendations to merge?)
 * In the AfD, it was stated the line was "not an opening". That was wrong. It was also stated the line was weak. That was also not really right. It was also asserted the name "Paris" didn't exist in any literature. Also not correct. It was also asserted the line was an offshoot/transposition of/to Philidor's Defence. That was also really not right. And so on. All of those comments then were aimed at figuring the article's notability. Since the time of those comments, I radically changed the scope and content of the article. You seem to be ignoring all of that, instead only valuing comments made when the article topic was virtually unknown, and clearly misunderstood, as though those erroneous observations then, have more validity, than the corrrected understanding about this line now. So I can't understand the validity of your arguments, it seems you are creating arguments no matter how invalid, only to satisfy your predisopsition goals for the article. You asked if I'm challenging merge. I asked questions regarding on what basis merge obtained a consensus, seeing that the content and scope of the article at that time was radically different than now, and seeing that many misconceptions about the line have hopefully been cleared up now, from before. I also asked questions about criteria to merge (what are they?) and if said criteria are being consistently applied or not, quoting other similar examples as a basis for that Q. You can see there have been no attempt to answer those questions, yet, you want to question beyond it, asking if I'm challenging, when I was questioning. (If you notice, I didn't even register vote in the AfD! So to suppose I'm challenging now, would be inconsistent, wouldn't it. I'm not !voting or "challenging" a !voted result, rather I'm contibuting thoughts & considers. I'm sure anyone can see how I stand on the issue anyway, so to ask for clarification where I stand is really superfluous, isn't it.) I've really talked and responded to all of *your* challenges to death; I tend to think there will be no end to this. So I really won't entertain discussion further, unless the dialogue smacks of better logic. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * From OCC, Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 365: "Semi-Italian Opening, also known as the Half Giuoco Piano, Lesser Giuoco Piano, or Paris Defence. Black plays 3...d6 insead of 3...Bc5, leading to play not unlike that in the Hungarian Defence." --IHTS (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Legal Trap/Mate
should the Legal Trap be added on to this article? --Rayous (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents: It's tempting since Paris seems to be a major entry point into Légal, but that article is generic (an example of the Trap instigated by Black is included, etc.) so would be hard or confusing to merge. I could see a mention/ref though (e.g. "If 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.h3 – see Légal Trap"). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. --IHTS (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sozin's "="
Good eye, ! Either Sozin assessment ("=") was flawed or this was misprint in Harding/Botterill and probably carried over by Unzicker to ECO C II. I've copyedited (mate is hardly "slight improvement" over =!) and kept your refutation for context. (Is it WP:OR? IMO no since provable OTB. So I would label it editorial insert. [I think choices were that, or eliminate the published Sozin analysis altogether. IMO the former is better.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move
This article probably properly belongs under name "Semi-Italian Opening": BCO (1982) calls it Paris Defence; Horowitz (1964) calls it "Half" Giuoco Piano and "Lesser" Giuoco Piano; the OCC (1987) has the entry under Semi-Italian Opening and says "also known as the Lesser Giuoco Piano or Half Giuoco Piano". In addition, the Giuoco Piano has alternate name Italian Opening (whereas Italian Game on WP is prior to 3...Bc5). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 365: "Semi-Italian Opening, also known as the Half Giuoco Piano, Lesser Giuoco Piano, or Paris Defence." --IHTS (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)