Talk:Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation

English attack 8. Qd2 claim
"If White had tried to play 8.Qd2, then Black could respond with 8...Ng4. " I don't have a book reference handy, but of the 2,400 games where white plays 8. Qd2, in none of them does black respond Ng4. Recent chess engines (Stockfish 11+) don't regard it as a strong move either. I propose removing this sentence as being misguided (possibly copy/pasted from a book?). Dhalamh (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Opocensky didn't invent it
Check the databases, Tartakower, van den Bosch, Kupchik, Canal and Kevitz all played 5...a6 in the 1920s, while Kupchik and Noteboom were combining it with ...e5 in the 1930s. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Perenyi Attack
I fed the Perenyi Attack (6.Be3 e6 7.g4!? e5 8.Nf5 g6 9.g5 gxf5) to Stockfish and it came up with 0.00 at about ply 35. I suspect this once ubiquitous line has been abandoned as a draw at top level, but of course this is original research. Can anyone find any good material on this line? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Murray Chandler is not English. 119.15.100.157 (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Verbeterde List
I have some concerns about the name of this section. It's clear from looking at databases of master games that 6...Nbd7 is the other main move in response to 6.Bg5, and has seen a resurgence of popularity in the last decade. However, almost every other search result for the term "Verbeterde List" refers back to this page. There is some discussion here http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1300141898 that casts further doubt on the legitimacy of the name. Unfortunately the given source for the name, the New In Chess Yearbooks, aren't easily available digitally. I did notice that the original author of this section, "Twaburov~enwiki", seems to have a similar username to the person defending the name Verbeterde List in the above forum link. Further Googling suggests that this person may be Twan Burg, who is cited as the author of the New In Chess piece coining the name. Taken together, it paints a potential picture of one person trying to push their name for a line that's not widely accepted elsewhere. Every other named variation in this article can be found in existing opening databases (such as the Lichess opening database or 365Chess.com database) except for this one. Perhaps for a name for a line to be worthy of inclusion here, there should be a citation from an independent source, such as an encyclopedia of chess openings, a corroboration of the name from an unrelated author in a book on the Najdorf, etc. Synonymousse (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also noting the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sicilian_Defence,_Najdorf_Variation,_Verbeterde_List, where Twaburov was advocating for preventing the deletion of the separate page which they created for the line. I think all of the arguments there for why that page shouldn't exist also apply to why the line shouldn't be named as such on the main page for the Najdorf. Synonymousse (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)