Talk:Sicilian Defence/Archive 1

most popular response
If this is "the most popular response to 1. e4 at the master level," can we not at least get as subtle and probing an analysis as, say, the French Defense?
 * This seems to be true, see Andreas Kaufmann 20:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a great article on the French. Not sure why the Sicilian article isn't up to that standard. The database link you gave is interesting, too. Of the sort-of-frequently played openings against 1.e4, 1...Nc6 does best, with White scoring only +2.1% over 742 games. (It would be interesting to see it broken down further -- after 2.Nf3! IMO the only fully acceptable move is 2...e5! but that reaches a double king-pawn opening (+10.8% for White).) Then there's 1...g5, scoring +4.7% for Black over just 64 games (maybe these games are largely IM Basman playing the opening against weaker players?). Krakatoa 21:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I was right about 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 being "!" Chessgames' database shows White scoring +9.5% in 431 games with that move, and a horrific -5.3% in 266 games with 2.d4 (??).  Krakatoa 22:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to justify labelling 2.d4 in response to 1. e4 Nc6 as ?? purely on database statistics from a relatively small sample. Likewise labelling 2.Nf3 !. Compare to 1.e4 h5, scoring 100% for black in three games - should it be 1.e4 h5!! ? Of course not.
 * With regard to the sicilian, it is certainly the most popular response to 1.e4 (nearly 20,000 more games in the chessgames.com database than 1...e5), and probably the best-scoring of the main responses (though the Modern Defence, 1...g6 has a higher win % for black, it also has a higher win % for white). 1...Nc6 is classified as B00 (Uncommon KP Opening), so cannot be described as a main response. I am thus removing the 'citation needed' on both of the opening statements.WarmasterKron 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

With regard to I restructured this article to make it easier to expand. I'm afraid that I know little on the Sicilian. I cannot even play the Sicilian. I have tried playing it twice, both times the game continued 1.e4 c5 2.c3 e6 3.d4 d5 4.e5. So even when I try to play the Sicilian, I still wind up playing the French... Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And what about the closed Sicilian variations (1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 ...)? There is nothing here at all about that!      Joe Gatt (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would love to see a short history on why it is called the "Sicilian". I think it has something to do with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and its origin may actually be Naples - but I'm not sure - someone wish to shed some light on that?  Is there a chance at all that it dates back to Arab Sicily circa 10th century, thus representing perhaps one of the first times that the game of chess entered Europe?  --pippudoz -  (waarom? jus'b'coz!)  00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was named by Gioacchino Greco so I have added that to the article. I have also seen jokes that it is called the "Sicilian" because Sicily is home of the mafia HQ, but that explanation sounds unlikely. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article mention e5 as a possible 2nd move for white? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.7.152 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The main reason is that 2.e5 is a highly unusual move. I know of no publications about it, and I think that is because 2.e5 is weakening and wastes time with a pawn move in an open position. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not mentioned because it sucks. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

2006
There is no where near enough disscusion on alternatives to the main line, these are the staple of many club players after all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.31.115.58 (talk • contribs) 04:04, July 16, 2006 (UTC).

Actually, the dragon line in the sicilian is explored in quite detail in its own page. The Najdorf, not quite so much.

Can we mention about "1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nxc6", and "1.e4 c5 2.Bc4" lines as well ? (Aksuvari 08:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

Too technical?
I'm not sure if I agree with the tag on the talkpage here. The article does have plenty of algebraic notation, but is it possible to write an article about a chess opening without using a lot of notation? I would guess that a person who doesn't know about chess but wants to find out what the "Sicilian Defense" is will only care about what we have in the lead, and that is not very technical at all. Those who want to read the stuff on variations further down are in general chess players already, and they will not have much trouble understanding it. Compared to a chess opening manual I feel that those sections are actually quite easy to read, explaining ideas and outlining the main routes, instead of going into detailed sub-sub-sub-variations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the algebraic notation is a significant part of the problem, it may be valuable stuff for a book on Chess, but is it appropriate to cover what looks to be about 20 variations in Wikipedia? I do not feel so.   Beyond that, I would not say that the lead section is especially clear either.  What is 1.e4?  Why not say "White moving the king's pawn forward 2 spaces" instead?  And the history section is just a mish-mash of people somehow involved with the opening, but I just don't see much substance to the coverage.  I just do not see this article as very approachable, and while I can accept (in theory, I don't quite see it as justified yet in the article) that it's notable enough, I do think it needs to be examined to see what can be done to fix that.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Algebraic chess notation is the standard way to designate chess moves. Centuries ago they would write "the player of the black pieces moved his bishop to three squares to the left of the king."  Do you think it would be better to describe each move that way?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that because that would be stupid. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, this article is substantially a how-to much like other chess openings. That is itself a problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * changed it to gameguide, which is what including all of those variants means to me. Is it not possible to cover this subject without going into so much detail?  FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * no, it's not possible. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this article needs an RFC or Peer Review? FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OOops, Game guide does catergorize with video games. Not sure that's appropriate, I'll stick with Howto.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a few quotes of sections I think are overly technical and instructional how-to in nature.

"The Classical Variation can arise from two different move orders: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6, and 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6. Black simply brings his knight out to its most natural square. White usually continues with 6.Bg5 (the Richter-Rauzer Attack), which intends Qd2, 0-0-0, and a timely Bxf6 to weaken Black's kingside, when Black often must respond with ...gxf6, which weakens his kingside pawn structure. In return, Black enjoys a useful majority of pawns in the centre.

Another popular variation is 6.Bc4, which brings the bishop to an aggressive square. After 6...e6 7.Be3 Be7,White can either castle kingside (the Sozin Attack), or queenside with 8.Qe2 and 9.0-0-0 (the Velimirović Attack). Instead of 6...e6, Black can also try Benko's move 6...Qb6. 6.Be2 allows the solid Boleslavsky Variation after 6...e5, while 6...e6 transposes to the Scheveningen Variation, and 6...g6 transposes to the Classical Variation of the Dragon.""

How is this anything but a long list of instructions on this variant with nothing but technical descriptions of moves and analysis of them? It's not even got a section on the origins of it, or the notability of the variation.

Or

"   Main article: Accelerated Dragon

Like the standard Dragon Variation, Black develops his bishop to g7 in the Accelerated Dragon. The difference is that Black avoids playing ...d7-d6, so that he can later play ...d7-d5 in one move if possible. For example, if White tries to play in the style of the Yugoslav Attack with 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2, 8...d5! equalizes immediately. When White does play 5.Nc3, it is usually with the idea of continuing 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0 8.Bb3 (forestalling any tricks involving ...Nxe4 and ...d5), followed by kingside castling.

The critical test of Black's move order is 5.c4, the Maróczy Bind. White hopes to cramp Black's position by impeding the ...d7-d5 and ...b7-b5 pawn thrusts. Generally, this line is less tactical than many of the other Sicilian variations, and play involves much strategic manoeuvring on both sides. After 5.c4, the main line runs 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 or 7...Ng4."

Now this variation has its own page. What does that page say? Pretty much the same thing as this paragraph, just formatted differently.

There's lot of others, I'd say they make up the substantive content of this page. It might be possible that there's an acceptable article for the Sicilian Opening over all, but this so far is not it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not the Sicilian Opening, it's the Sicilian Defense. It's ridiculous for someone who knows nothing about the subject of chess to criticize this article for being too technical. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph on the classical Sicilian is a good descriptive paragraph on the qualities of that variation. It does not go into the instruction manual arena. If you read a chess opening manual you will find page up and page down of analysis of all sorts of subvariations, and sub-sub-variations, all of them ending with the author's assesment of the position. This article does not, it merely lays out the motivation behind the strategy. Describing the motivations for an opening does not equate to instruction manual stuff. The paragraph on the Accelerated Dragon is not quite as good, but Batsford's Chess Openings does indicate the Maroczy as the most serious challenge to the Accelerated Dragon, and the ...d5 move is labeled as a critical move in just about any opening book on the Sicilian Defense.
 * If the algebraic notation is a problem, I'm afraid that there is not much we can do about it. Writing about chess openings without some notation (And believe me, algebraic is the best notation which we have, you do not want to see descriptive notation) is like trying to write an article about mathematics without using equations. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's still clearly and instruction manual, and often it's not providing any sources or context for these alleged qualities. I'm sure that some chess manuals have even more content, but others would put exactly this kind of information in them.  If you can't recognize that there's an issue with a move-by-move analysis of an opening, then we may be at an impasse.  Besides, there is a difference between some notation mixed with explanations more for the layman, and no other content whatsoever to provide useful understanding to other people.  There is a balance that is closer to providing some understanding for everybody.  This is too far on the wrong end.  That is what I'm saying.  Heck, the whole page would be a lot better if it opened with a lead like "The White player moves his king's pawn two spaces foward, and Black responds with moving the Queen's Bishop".  Is that too much to ask? You don't have to remove the notation, just supplement it a little.  Think about it, not as a chess player, but as somebody who wants to make this article understandable to as many people as possible. FrozenPurpleCube 05:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article would not be better if it opened with "The White player moves his king's pawn two spaces foward, and Black responds with moving the Queen's Bishop". First off it would be completely wrong, Black does not move his Queen's Bishop. Second, the verbiose description you suggest is extremaly cumbersome, and was rejected historically in the favor of descriptive chess notation. Even this is quite cumbersome, and the compact algebraic notation is the standard way of writing chess. Even if you don't know algebraic, the presence of the diagram makes it abundantly clear what has been played. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, I'm sorry it was late at night, and imperfect me meant to add Queen's Bishop Pawn, but I left out a word. Is that a reason to be so hostile?  Maybe if you weren't so negative, you'd realize that was a minor slip on my part, nothing more.  If you want to try to come up with a better, less cumbersome description go ahead, and while I'm sure that the Chess authorities of the world prefer their notation, Wikipedia is meant for the whole world.  And guess what?  Some users won't have access to the image.  Some are blind, some might just prefer to have a description.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sorry that you find my tone hostile, but I am a bit frustrated with your insisting that since you don't understand the article, then there must be something wrong with it.
 * The less cumbersome description is the algebraic notation, it is the universal standard for all chess-realted literature and understood by everyone who wants to study chess. Even the few chess-related articles in my paper general-purpose encyclopedia (Aschehoug) make use of this (the article on the Caro-Kann i referred to some time back has no trouble with using "1.e4 c6").
 * The article is not very technical in nature, it is written in the style I would expect in the Oxford Companion to Chess, which is a chess encyclopedia, a reference work where you can look up terms. It is not an instructional manual, and I really wish you would stop edit-warring over that tag. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The hypocrisy is almost as amusing as the foolishness. On might as well write mathematics articles in the style "the first integer summed with the first integer has the same value as the second integer." -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not a question of *me* understanding it, try to depersonalize the issue and think about it from the perspective of the average person since you are having a problem empathizing with me. And I'm sure that while chess-related literature commonly uses the notation, that doesn't mean using descriptive language is a bad thing. I'm sorry I can't explain to you the value of explaining the moves in any way other than algebraic notation, and it's clear that we're at an impasse, so the proper thing to is to proceed with the further steps of the Dispute resolution process].  Accordingly I have filed a request for mediation.  Please indicate whether or not you agree to participate at the page linked to on your talk page or up above. [[User:FrozenPurpleCube|FrozenPurpleCube 15:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The average reader of the article will also be someone who is interested in chess, and hence will know algebraic notation. In case the reader doesn't know it for some reason, a link to algebraic notation is at the top of the article so that a prospective reader can learn it. If someone is interested in learning about chess, they have got to learn notation, not doing so is like trying to learn about mathematics without learning about numbers. (It is not as difficult to learn this as it might look at first, if you know how to label a square on a chessboard, and the names of the pieces, you know 95% of algebraic notation as well. It is the first phonetic initial for the piece, followed by the square it moves to. "Bc5" means "Bishop to c5, "Nxc3" means "Knight captures on c3, "d4" means "pawn (no capital letter=pawn move) to d4, and "0-0" and "0-0-0" means castling.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously your interpretation and my interpretation of what the average reader knows or doesn't know are two entirely different things. I think it's an unfair assumption to assume that a person will understand algebraic notation, and while to you it may be easy to understand, that doesn't mean it is easy for everyone.  What is perhaps a simple instruction to you, may be hard for me.  What's easy for me to understand may be hard for you.  Besides, remember, Wikipedia is not a book on chess.  This is not a situation where a person only sees the information if they are looking for it specifically, but where a person can come across it in any number of ways, including the "Random article" feature.  In any case, improving accessibility is not a bad thing, so I don't see any reason for not including some additional description, however minimal.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My daughter understood algebraic notation when she was 6 years old, and no one taught it to her. Read the article algebraic chess notation.  The rows of the board are labeled with 1-8, the columns are numbered a-h.  You give the abbreviation for the piece and the square it goes to.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's nice. So do you speak for every person everywhere understanding algebraic notation so easily?  Is there some real reason to adamantly oppose the accessibility increase that adding descriptive language would offer over algebraic notation and notation only?  It seems strange to insist on that.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have a reason to oppose the kind of descriptive language you propose to describe chess moves (which would mean sentences along the line of "White moves his king's pawn two squares to his king's fourth square on the first move"). This kind of sentence was used historically back in the 1700s and early 1800s, but it was so cumbersome that it was over time abbreviated to what is today called descriptive notation. That descriptive notation was used in some English and Spanish literature up until the 1990s, and I have therefore learnt that as well in order to read some older literature, but that notation is really more confusing than the algebraic notation which is the norm (and today albebraic is the only notation officially sanctioned by FIDE). The problem with the descriptive sentences to describe chess moves are that they are confusing to everybody. It is confusing to those who don't play chess because they don't know what a "pawn" is and what it can do, let alone what a "king's pawn" is. I don't think a full sentence will help them one bit. It is confusing to those who do play chess, because they need to read every word and detail of an entire sentence instead of simply "1.e4".
 * Algebraic notation is so standard that the general-purpose paper encyclopedia I have (Aschehoug) which for some reason has an article on the Caro-Kann (but not on the others, which is strange) has no problem defining the moves with this notation.
 * The article presently offers two alternatives to those who for some reason don't understand algebraic notation. First, there is a link at the top of the article to algebraic notation where this is explained to them. Second, there is a diagram on the right showing the position defining the Sicilian, and that should be clear to everybody. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet I've never seen seen your encyclopedia, so I have no idea how to rate the value of its content, however, your statement that that is the only opening is indicative to me that they didn't put much thought into it. So it's a bad example at best.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The chess article in my copy of the World Book Encyclopedia gives moves in chess notation. Bubba73 (talk), 00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One good thing about his suggestion is that the articles that are now short, one-paragraph stubs would become several screens long! :-) Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Random article" is a fun function but just reading random articles is a poor way to read an encyclopedia in my opinion. I don't usually roll a d20 dice to pick a random volume, and then pick a page at random and start reading. Rather I search for what I want to read about. If people dislike what they get with the "random article" button, then it serves them right.
 * The target audience for this article is people with at least some interest in chess, not people who arrive here by random article. Specialized articles will always have the problem of not being immediately understandable to someone unfamiliar with the basic context of the article. This is true for all fields, not just chess. For science: In order to understand the article on Boltzmann equation you would need some understanding of physics, and some more-than-basic understanding of calculus. For sports, one needs to know the basic rules of football/soccer to fully appreciate Formation (football). For history: In order to fully appreciate the Battle of Vågen article you will need to know a little bit about the political and economic situations at that time, although the subject of history is blessed with still being able to use plain English to describe its subject matter, mathematics and chess don't have that benefit. If someone does not understand a more specialized article like this one, the best thing for that reader to do, if he wants to understand it and not just go to another random article, is to read a more basic article, such as algebraic notation or even chess, if the reader does not even know the rules of the game. One needs to know how to walk before one can attempt running. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry that you dismiss the value of appealing to the public at large, and I guess this is why mediation will be necessary. Furthermore, if you look at the Football page, you'll note it does describe the histories of the formations, and I don't consider the scientific article you posted to an example of a good page.  It's very unapproachable to the common man. (in fact, I'm going to tag it right now)  Pythagorean theorem is a much better example of how to do things.  The historical battle you noted is also substantially more than just the movement of the ships involved. BTW, none of the articles you named are either Good or Featured articles.  Some of them are unassessed. Therefore, your examples are not exactly persuasive.  You can't say "But this is done the same way" and it mean anything when all it means is that that page has the same problem. FrozenPurpleCube 16:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, here's my take on some of the points raised by FrozenPurpleCube. I don't agree with most of his comments, but I think I see where he's coming from. Lines in italics are quotes from his comments.

1. I think the algebraic notation is a significant part of the problem

This one I definitely disagree with. Algebraic notation isn't trivially easy to learn (then again, it isn't that hard either), but it's extremely widespread and communicating anything but the most rudimentary chess ideas would be impossible without it. Any newspaper chess column, for example, uses algebraic notation. Chess books written for kids will teach chess notation before anything else. Algebraic notation serves the same purpose in chess as IUPAC nomenclature and structural formulae do for chemistry - you couldn't explain something like aldol condensation without them, and they're much harder to learn than chess notation. We've already got the tag at the top of the article to help readers find out about it.

2. this article is substantially a how-to much like other chess openings

That isn't really the purpose of most of the chess opening articles, but I see how it can seem that way with lines like "White can play Be3" or "Black could try ...Qb6". In many of these cases, the article is trying to describe what moves have historically been the most common in a certain position, and is not trying to recommend those moves to the reader. Rephrasing things as "White most commonly plays Be3" or "Black players have usually responded with ...Qb6 or ...e6" might help with this.

3. Is it not possible to cover this subject without going into so much detail?

Well, maybe the detail is too much for an article on the Sicilian itself, and the article could be split up into sub-articles. But the level of detail doesn't seem inappropriate to me; the Kalashnikov Variation occupies an area within the subject of chess similar to the area the Overman rearrangement occupies within the scope of organic chemistry. At least one 176-page book has been written on the Kalashnikov, just as the Overman rearrangement has been the subject of many scientific papers (but I doubt a book's been written exclusively about it).

4. (Referring to the paragraphs on the Classical Sicilian) ''How is this anything but a long list of instructions on this variant with nothing but technical descriptions of moves and analysis of them? It's not even got a section on the origins of it, or the notability of the variation.''

Firstly, that and other paragraphs really don't contain any in-depth analysis. To put it in context, this article on the Yugoslav Attack of the Dragon is "analysis", so to speak, although even then, it's really just a summary of a particular variation in the Dragon. Look at that table on page 2, rows 3 to 5. This book gives 333 pages of analysis on the moves contained within those three rows. THAT'S analysis. (Pity it's from 1995, so it's completely outdated.) What does our article here have to say about the Yugoslav? Two sentences, "White's most dangerous try against the Dragon is the Yugoslav Attack, which goes 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6, when both 9.0-0-0 and 9.Bc4 are played. This variation leads to extremely sharp play and is ferociously complicated, since the players castle on opposite wings and the game becomes a race between White's kingside attack and Black's queenside counterattack." The variation is defined, and the general character of the play that results from it is described. No analysis whatsoever.

On the other hand, FrozenPurpleCube is completely correct in saying there's nothing explaining the origins or notability of just about all of these variations. Fair enough, we'll have to do something about that (although it's not easy finding literature that adequately explains the history of some of these moves, and we don't want original research around here either).

5. This article and all the other chess opening articles on Wikipedia need referencing. That's completely true.

I don't think FrozenPurpleCube's the only person to have been baffled by these chess opening articles in general. On the other hand, I think many people have found them useful. It's very easy to dismiss these articles as being "too technical and inaccessible to the general public", but keep in mind there's been thousands of books written on these topics, and no doubt there's much room for improvement, but I don't think the average non-chessplayer realizes just how much information exists on things like the Sicilian Defence. youngvalter 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, I don't consider us to be incomplete disagreement here, but I do think you may have taken some of my comments about of context. For example, point 1.  I was not talking about the mere substance of algebraic notation, but the 20 or so variants described in notation.  It's obviously easy to get notation for any number of named variants.  So what?  Naming a variant, listing the moves, and the considered responses is apparently quite easy.  Getting more is hard.  But that "more" is what makes the article more than just a recounting of moves, which I say is not encyclopedic at all.  In regards to your second point, I've looked at most of the chess openings articles.  For the most part, they are nothing more than recounting the chess opening, and how to play it.  I'm not really concerned with your third point either.  Being able to provide more details doesn't make these articles any better.  I've already responded to that issue many times.  So you could write a longer more indepth book on it.  So what?  It doesn't do anything to fix the problems I see with the articles.  Lots and lots of information exists on many many subjects, from chess to chemistry and beyond.  And I note, that in the FAC for [Aldol reaction]] many people expressed the concern that the subject needed a layman's introduction.  It doesn't seem that those concerns were addressed and I'm honestly surprised it made a FA without those reservations being addressed.  (And I'd say that Aldol condensation is also a very poor article, I've added a context tag to it.  Perhaps somebody will fix it.)  FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree more references are necessary, and I'm sure there are lots of books. Have I ever denied the existence of sources? Yes, a lack of sources is a problem, but sources aren't the root of the problem I have.    My problem is of a different nature.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You call this article "just a recounting of moves", which isn't really true: in most cases the motivation behind the moves is explained as well, and possible responses to them are described briefly. I think that's coverage of an encyclopedic nature. Of course, it would be nice to have info on the history behind the variations or some comments as to how they relate to the development of chess in general (i.e. explaning notability). But what we have right now is a reasonable start and is far more than a mish-mash of moves, which would be this.
 * As for this article being a "how-to", I think explaining the rationale behind a move or describing typical plans used in a certain variation is information, not instruction. We're not telling people how to play an opening, we're telling them how other players have played it in the past. Occasionally these articles lapse into an instructional tone, but usually that's easily fixed. youngvalter 00:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not talking quite about just this article, but parts of this article, and the entirety of several articles in the Category:Chess openings. Take a look at QGD; 3...Nf6, Wade Defense, Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O what is there besides the recounting of moves?  There are similar sections found on this page, like in 2...e6 3.d4 (3...cxd4 4.Nxd4) or 2...Nc6 3.d4 (3...cxd4 4.Nxd4) and even Kalashnikov Variation: 4...e5 doesn't talk very much about anything meaningful about the variation in comparison to the space it devotes to the description of how to play it.  Maybe you're correct in saying that the Kalashnikov Variation is very important in chess.  The text covering it doesn't begin to cover that.  In any case, your statement that "the motivation behind the moves is explained as well, and possible responses to them are described briefly." indicates to me that it's a how-to as that's exactly what I would expect from an instructional work.  What's here now may be a reasonable start to producing a finished article.  It's nowhere near a finished product.  I don't think it's even clearly pointed in the direction to being a good article.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check the page histories, QGD; 3...Nf6 and Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 7...O-O were both articles created for linkspam purposes. They should be merged into the main articles, but that's another issue altogether. The Wade Defense by nature transposes to many different openings - hence the mention of all the various transpositions. Within this article, if you read more carefully, the lead paragraphs in the 2...e6 3.d4 (3...cxd4 4.Nxd4) or 2...Nc6 3.d4 (3...cxd4 4.Nxd4) sections explain the context of the subsections that follow.
 * Again, the article doesn't tell people how to play the Sicilian, it tells them how other players have played it in the past. It explains why previous players have played the moves that they did, and how their moves were countered by their opponents. That's not an instruction, is it? youngvalter 02:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And if you'd checked some of my previous comments involving this issue, you'd have noticed where I have said that several such pages were created for that reason already. I don't know if I said so on this page, but I'm certainly aware of the issue.  Unfortunately, other than some very inconsistently done link removal nothing has been done about this for several months. So um, that's yet another indication that some serious work needs to be done in the category.  And no, neither the Wade Defense or the subsections I named do anywhere near an adequate job of explanation.  Does it even say why it has the same it does?  Who is this Wade?  What persons have talked about it in a scholarly context?  No idea from the article.  Forgive me for saying that's a problem.  And in this article, take a look at "Black's move 2...e6 gives priority to developing the dark-squared bishop. After 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, Black has three main moves: 4...Nc6 (the Taimanov Variation), 4...a6 (the Kan Variation) and 4...Nf6. After 4...Nf6 5.Nc3, Black can transpose to the Scheveningen Variation with 5...d6, or play 5...Nc6, the Four Knights Variation." which um, says what?  Nothing really than a recounting of variations and moves.  Maybe there's something more that can be said, but that alone?  Not particularly general purpose encyclopedic.  Sure, there are the rare exceptions like "2...d6 without 3.d4" which does say "Grandmasters sometimes choose this variation when they wish to avoid theory; for instance, it was played by Garry Kasparov in the online game Kasparov - The World." so I can at least give some credence to the idea that it's being tried.  It's just not being done very well.  Sorry, but it just seems to me that there's no real plan to what's going on this page, and what's not.  Instead, it's like "throw every single variation on the page" is the rule of the day.    FrozenPurpleCube 03:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when it comes to the spam articles, unfortunately Wikiproject Chess doesn't have a lot of active members, which is why these things don't get done as quickly as you might like.
 * Maybe you should read transposition (chess) if you don't understand why this "recounting of variations and moves" is necessary in the particular case you point out. And in general, remember Wikipedia is a work in progress, and relax. youngvalter 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quoting from above "...unfortunately Wikiproject Chess doesn't have a lot of active members, which is why these things don't get done as quickly as you might like." In addition, members of the project have wasted many, many hours trying to explain to Mister.M why moves are needed in articles, why algebraic chess notation is the world-wide standard for designating moves, etc.  That takes away many hours of good editors that could be devoted to improving articles.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you familiarize yourself with the WP:NPA policy, and consider whether your reply is truly appropriate. This is but one of many times where you've commented on me, instead of the actual issue with the content.  Perhaps you might wish to consider whether that's truly the appropriate thing to do?  FrozenPurpleCube 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * His reply was appropriate and didn't attack you, it described what other people have done. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I bring them up because nothing has been done about them, other than some spotty removal of the links. The whole category has a problem.  If the problem's simply that a person abused Wikipedia to make it a linkfarm....why not fix it instead of attacking me like so many of the members of the chess wikiproject have done?   Maybe you should be suggesting they relax and Assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.  Heck, tell me what you think should be done about the problem.  Or say so on WP:CHESS. Or start prod'ing, merging, or AFD'ing them yourself.  Don't just say "They're linkspam" as if that was an somehow exculpatory.  Not in this case it's not.  Not that I'd say it's even the main problem here.  As I see it, even on the articles that should be kept, there's still a problem in focus and direction that leads to overly technical articles that serve to do little more than instruct folks on how to play. FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the recounting of variations and moves...um, if it's important. Say so in the section.  There's nothing in transposition  (chess) that tells me why it's important to recount that particular set of variations in this article.  So, maybe you should explain why those lines are important.  Go ahead.  Convince me.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transpositions in and of themselves are important for chess players to know. Just to make it clearer, I put in links in the article to direct the readers to where those variations are described. Then again, it seems that you consider explanations of moves to be "recounting" and/or "instructing". Nobody else around here seems to think so. I rest my case. youngvalter 17:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But why these transpositions? What's important about them?  Are they the only transpositions possible, or are there more that aren't recounted?  Besides, by saying "important for chess players to know...um, isn't that pretty much saying that it's instructional.   Try thinking of the content in "how is this important for everybody to know?" instead.  And once again, I suggest you comment on the content, not the contributor.  By trying to single me out, you've made a personal attack instead of validly arguing your point.  That is the sort of attitude that is not conducive to making a better article, but is instead hostile and uncivil.  It does not develop consensus to say to a person "you're wrong because you're the only person who says so" .  Instead, it creates an unpleasant atmosphere of acrimony.  Do you really think that's going to change my mind?  It's not.  It's only going to convince me that instead of approaching me with a show of good faith and listening to my concerns in a way that we can reason together to resolve them, you'd rather just shut me up and ignore them.  There's a reason why that kind of argument is a bad one to make.  So, please consider not making it.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So much hypocrisy in re incivility. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A few months ago the Category:Chess opening stubs had only about five articles in it and was up for deletion. I knew that there were dozens of articles that should be in this category, so I added all I could find.  I didn't find the three articles you mention above, I just categorized them.  The first two were started by WTHarvey, and it appears that probably every article he started is a stub that should be merged up.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a chess player, and upon reading this article I would like to say that feel it is too technical. I understand the move abbreviations and the rules and basic strategy of the game, but am not a regular or avid player. If even an amatuer player who grew up with the game has a hard time slogging through this article's intro, then I think that indicates that it might be too technical. VanTucky 22:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think Laplace's equation is too technical? Bubba73 (talk), 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, and I'm referring specifically to the intro here. An introduction should be comprehensible to people without an intimate knowledge of the subject prior to reading. Getting into the article for the equation, it is simply a necessity to describe the concept in technical terms/scientific-mathematical notation. making a concerted effort to do so in layman's terms would be nearly impossible. Besides, this is a very common sequence of play in a game we're talking about, not higher mathematics. You don't need complex terminology or special notation to define the concept in the introduction. Remember, this is an encyclopedia; it's first and foremost for people who don't already know what you're talking about here. Once you've covered a basic definition, feel free to discuss the defense in-depth and however technically is desired for chess players all you want. That's what the Laplace article does. And I'm not talking about six paragraphs of basic intro here, a few sentences at most would be acceptable. VanTucky 22:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a specific point in the intro of this article where it becomes too technical for someone who knows the basics of chess? Bubba73 (talk), 22:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything in the intro after the first notation. VanTucky 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"You don't need complex terminology or special notation to define the concept in the introduction." -- yes, actually, you do. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) What is too technical about this sentence: "It is the most popular and best-scoring response to 1.e4 at the master level. " ? Bubba73 (talk), 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I guess I should be more precise. It's mostly too technical and also poorly written. It is far too dense, cumbersome and generally unreadable, of which over-technicality is one part. It's an introduction for pete's sake. VanTucky 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the introductory paragraph several times and put in several links to make it more understandable. That's about all I can do.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I also read the first section and the history section, and they look pretty good to me. The contents and level of material meet my expectations for the article.  I suspect that your expectations are different from mine, and that may be part of the reason you find the page to be unsatisfactory.  You may be able to help us improve it, if you are willing to do a little work.  Can you 1) explain what you expect to learn from the Sicilian Defence page as a whole, and what you expect in the introduction in particular?, and 2) Point out the first sentence(s) that give you trouble in the introduction, and explain what you find difficult about them.  We need some specificity, because with our different backgrounds, what you find difficult on a chess subject and what we find difficult are probably not the same.  For someone with some background in the study of chess, the entire article is pretty elementary. That's why it's hard to address really general complaints—the possible problems simply aren't visible to us. Quale 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think it was Walter Chan who did some good work on the introduction. It reads very well. All specific chess terms have links. There is a link to algebraic notation at the top (has been for some time). Anyone should be able to read the two introductory paragraphs. The history section is easy to read. If you want to get into more details, you can. I propose that the "too technical" tag should be removed. Bubba73 (talk), 00:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Since no one claiming that the page is too technical seems willing to point out specific problem areas, I agree that the tag should be removed. I am always willing to consider ways to improve any chess page, but we none of the complaints have been detailed enough to act on. Quale 08:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that this article is overly difficult to understand. I'm a beginning chess player that has been making a study of it for a few weeks now.  I understand the notation.  I work as a high level engineer.  I'm hardly a layman.  And I can barely make heads or tails of the article.  I don't think you can just dismiss these comments that people are making about the article because they have difficulty pointing out exactly why they can't understand the page.  If they understood the page, maybe they could answer you.  The basic problem that I see isn't the chess notation itself, but rather that a printed sequence of moves is somehow considered to be self evident.  For people who are very deeply into the chess world, I imagine it is.  I've seen a lot of instruction about chess tactics on the net that go something like:  "1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 Clearly a strong response.  The next moves are now obvious."  To a tournament player, maybe it is obvious.  To the other 99.99% of the world, it's pure jibberish.  Not because we can't decode notation.  We can.  But because a simple replay of moving pieces _doesn't convey the idea_.  It's actually leaving it to the reader to realize the tactical and strategic implication of each move in the sequence.  A goal of a encyclopedic article like this one should be to explain the topic to someone who _doesn't_ already have a deep understanding of the field.  What I personally hoped to see in this article was a step by step explanation of each move in this opening which details why that move is made.  And I don't see that at all.  The article is mostly composed of seemingly endless strings of algebraic notation for every subvariation with little or no explanation at all.  I'd say drop the giant list of variations, pick the most popular sequence, and explain it in depth move by move.  After that, you can talk about a couple of popular variants. 67.164.111.181 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sequences of moves given in the article have evolved over many decades. They're not at all self-evident. No doubt even very strong players of earlier times like Siegbert Tarrasch would consider many current lines of the Sicilian bizarre. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an instruction manual. There are plenty of books that will give you move-by-move explanations, but Wikipedia doesn't do that. Krakatoa (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then I'm having a hard time seeing the point of this article at all. I'm an engineer with multiple patents, and I've been studying chess for weeks.  If someone like me can't take anything away from this article, then who is the audience that will be bettered by it?  The way it is written now, it seems that the only people who will understand the article are people who already understand the subject.  And where's the use in that?  The article shouldn't be an instruction manual, as you say.  But if it explained at least the gist of what the various moves in this opening were getting at, it seems to me that it would improve the article immensely.  The article does, in fact, explain the point of black's first move, and that is actually informative.  But it more or less ends there.  67.164.111.181 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at Chess opening before looking at specific openings. Bubba73 (talk), 21:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Krakatoa and Bubba73. I understand what you want, but that level of instruction isn't an encyclopedia article.  Ideally wikibooks would be able to help, but I don't think its chess content is very well developed right now.  I recommend John Watson's multi-volume Mastering the Chess Openings.  I had originally written a long explanation of why this article can't meet your desires, etc., etc., but it boils down to this.  If you want to learn about the history and cultural significance of a tasty pastry, you might try an encyclopedia article such as apple pie.  If you want to learn how to bake, you will find it more helpful to consult a cookbook instead.  Quale (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Other books are Understanding Chess Openings by Sam Collins and the Chess Opening Essentials set of books by three authors. But for his level, I recommend Winning Chess Openings by Yasser Seirawan - a good, easy-to-read one-volume book aimed at beginners. Bubba73 (talk), 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It really won't do to quote material that doesn't appear in this article, like "Clearly a strong response. The next moves are now obvious" as a criticism of this article. And "What I personally hoped to see in this article was a step by step explanation of each move in this opening which details why that move is made" asks for a how-to, which is not the purpose of WP ... and the answer often amounts to saying that the other moves are worse -- you would need a complete analysis to answer your question. -- 98.108.198.236 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on how-to tagging
There is a somewhat stagnant conversation on what should and should not be consider as unwanted howto content. In my opinion, many chess strategies are valuable content, even tho the description of the strategies CAN be used just like a how-to. Should those strategies be described as a how-to, now that's another matter. I think not. Yet I dont feel this article deserves to be stripped down of in-game analysis.

Why wouldn't you share your thoughts on this matter on the how-to category talk page? Welcome! We need good ideas on this. Good ideas can be formed into guidelines, when enough editors agree on those. Hopefully we can help to improve many other articles as well. Santtus 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd personally like to see some improvement done to this article, and the others in the category, as for the question of when to tag as a how-to, I don't have much in the way of advice to add, except that this kind of in-game analysis is not appropriate for Wikipedia, whether it's for chess, a video game, or woodworking. It's not bad content per se, it's just more appropriate at the current level for a book on Chess.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no issue to address here. The article isn't a howto, as has been explained to FrozenPurpleCube several times in several places.  He's waging a one person war against chess content on Wikipedia, but has little to no support for his positions. Quale 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.dxc5 Nxe4
The text claimed the above line is "perfectly adequate" for Black. This statement is unsourced, and seems POV and possibly incorrect. Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, volume 3 (3rd edition 1997), p. 315 n. 4 gives this line as leading to large advantage for White. The alternative 4...Qa5+, which our text had not mentioned, is given as leading to unclear play. I accordingly rewrote the text to state that Black intends to meet 4.dxc5!? with 4...Nxe4 or 4...Qa5+, without stating how the resultant positions should be assessed. Krakatoa (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Should article be upgraded to B-class?
Maybe the article is good enough for B-class now? The analysis isn't super-deep, but that's mostly because the deeper analysis is in the more specific articles. The article's discussion of the history of the Sicilian is decent, I think. (Admittedly, I'm not too objective, since I wrote much of the history stuff.) Krakatoa (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Changed to B-Class
 * Coverage of Closed Sicilian is start quality so would like that it have own section and diagram explaining.
 * At present analysis in article is quite good and some past criticism of chess articles are they are to technical, so more analysis not of high importance. ChessCreator (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article?
Someone has put this at the top of the article: "It has been suggested that this page be split into into [sic] the Open Sicilian, the Closed Sicilian and the Smith-Morra Gambit." I think this is a terrible idea, for three reasons. First, the article doesn't seem unmanageably long, so I don't see the point. Second, the suggested split would be a bad one since the three lines are not even close to equally important. The Open Sicilian is far more important in current praxis than the Closed Sicilian, which in turn is far more important than the Smith-Morra Gambit, a line virtually never seen in high-level play. Third, a number of lines don't fit into any of the three categories (for example, the Grand Prix Attack and other lines with f4, including the Tal Gambit; the Wing Gambit; 2.b3), some of which (such as the Alapin (2.c3), Rossolimo (2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5), and Moscow (2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+)) are also far more important than the Smith-Morra Gambit. I vote an emphatic "NO" to the split and suggest that the header proposing it be removed. Krakatoa (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the header removal. I don't see the point either, would be interested to know the reason a split was suggested. ChessCreator (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Split info box now removed. ChessCreator (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sicilian Wing Gambit and other Wing Gambits have a separate page. That seems a strange way to organise things. ChessCreator (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; that does seem weird. It makes about as much sense as it would to have an "Exchange Variation" page discussing the Exchange Variation of the QGD, the Exchange Slav, the Exchange French, the Exchange Caro-Kann, and the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez. Krakatoa (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear if your comment is for real(taken literally) given the existance of Exchange variation. ChessCreator (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was being literal. I had no idea there actually was such an article -- though as long as it just defines what an exchange variation is without giving substantive analysis, I guess it's OK. Krakatoa (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I agree that it makes no sense to split out main pages summary style into Wing Gambit, Exchange Variation, Poisoned Pawn Variation, and the like, but aren't they good articles to have as sort of disambiguation style pointers?  Steinitz Variation was a stub about the V. in the Petrov, but I turned it into a list of Steinitz V.s.  (I hope I got all the important ones, along with a few not as important.)  Similarly, Berlin Defence might make sense if it listed the several opening variations given that name.  (Currently I think it's missing some, at least one in the King's G.) Quale (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of those links I really like how the idea of how the Steinitz Variation is done, a disambiguation document without any analysis. ChessCreator (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree. Having the page function as a disambiguation document, as in the case of the Steinitz Variation, is reasonable, but having substantive analysis of a bunch of totally different lines, as with Wing Gambit, is weird. Krakatoa (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I agree that providing analysis of unrelated openings on the same page isn't good. Quale (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: there should be at least a mention given somewhere to the 6.g3 variation. It's fairly popular - used by many GMs including Fischer, and a good surpise weapon for white. I believe it's called the Zagreb variation, but I may be wrong.

King David Variation 2.Ke2
I deleted mention of the so-called "King David Variation," 2.Ke2, from the article. No source is given for this "variation." I don't doubt that whoever put it in found some mention of it in some Eric Schiller book or some such, but it is not a real variation. 2.Ke2 is a weak and pointless move, indeed literally the worst move on the board. I have never heard of it; I am not going to waste the time to do so, but I am sure that I could look through ECO, MCO, NCO, BCO, the Oxford Companion to Chess, assorted chess encyclopedias and dictionaries, and every other reputable source in my library without finding reference to it. If it is mentioned anywhere, it would be in some Eric Schiller book that I stupidly bought. I searched Opening Explorer at chessgames.com (available to members only). chessgames.com's database contains 90,025 Sicilians. In those 90,025 games, 2.Ke2 was not played once. I also searched ChessBase's Mega Database 2007, which contains over 3.51 million games, probably around 700,000 713,649 of which are Sicilians, for the position arising after 1.e4 c5 2.Ke2. Again, "No games found." The King David Variation thus flunks Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability and notability. Hasta la vista, baby. Krakatoa (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (revised) Krakatoa (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of questionable "named variations" have been added to opening articles very recently. We probably need to require WP:RS reliable sources before letting these in. Quale (talk) 04:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good call on removing it as totally unverifiable. with 4.2 million games also "found 0 games" after 1.e4 c5 2.Ke2. Although I do not entirely agree with the assessment of 1.Ke2 being the "worst move on the board", I think 2.Ba6?? loses a piece while 2.Ke2 does not. Strongly agree with Quale that the "exotic" variations need some reliable source to be mentioned. Just being named in any one of the thousands of chess books is quite sufficient, and that rather weak requirement will already cover a wealth of opening lines. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Woops! You are right that 2.Ba6?? is worse. Somehow that move escaped me. Krakatoa (talk) 09:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

2...d5
should we mention the line 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The line you cited, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5?!, is the Elephant Gambit or Queen's Pawn Countergambit, which is outside the scope of the Sicilian. If you meant 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d5?!, as far as I know that is not a recognized variation of the Sicilian. (A totally different line, 1.e4 c5 2.f4 d5!? 3.exd5 Nf6, is the well-respected Tal Gambit, which is discussed in the article. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 d5 is a somewhat dubious line pioneered by Aron Nimzowitsch and rarely seen today, although John Emms and Richard Palliser did recommend it on page 173 of their 2006 book Dangerous Weapons: The Sicilian.) Krakatoa (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an unknown variation
What kind of variation is 2. e5? The Chessgames.com opening explorer gave no name for it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that 2.e5 is indeed an unknown variation. Someone might have played it against me in a non-serious game sometime, but it is not a common move, nor one discussed by chess theory as far as I know. Over a century ago, Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, advocated the somewhat similar 1.e4 e6 2.e5!?, but I've never seen any discussion of 1.e4 c5 2.e5. It would not be considered a good move, since it does nothing to further White's development. Black would probably play 2...d5 (2..d6 is also OK), and if 3.Nf3, 3...Bg4 with an improved version of the Advance Variation of the French Defense, since Black has succeeded in developing his "bad" queen bishop. Krakatoa (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 2.e5 is not really 'unknown', IMHO, but is sometimes played in 'skittles' games to get out of the 'book'. The idea is to cramp Black's kingside and see if Black will start grabbing pawns (and maybe a piece sacrifice) and neglect his development.  I've seen Black get into serious trouble, to the point where he's unable to castle and succumbs to a attack down the middle.  It may also work against lesser computer chess programs that 'think' it's safe to lose a few tempi for material gain. (If you want a name for it, call it the Wastrel Gambit.) Black has little to fear if he sticks to sound principles.  2.e5 can hardly be recommended in any kind of serious play, though, and isn't in any opening book that I know of, and for those reasons doesn't belong in this article, again IMHO. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Eric

Nimzowitsch Variation
Nimzowitsch has two variations in the Sicilian. 2 Nf3 Nf6 the Nimzowitsch Variation mentioned in the article. The other is(B32) 2 Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 d5. SunCreator (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Anderssen game
''Anderssen, London 1851 continued 2..e6 3.Nc3 a6 4.a4 Nc6 5.d3 g6 6.Nge2 Bg7 7.0-0 Nge7 8.f4 0-0 9.Bd2 d5 10.Bb3 Nd4 11.Nxd4, and now Soltis recommends 11...cxd4! 12.Ne2 Bd7!'' -- the other player's name is missing, as is whether Anderssen was W or B. Anyone know? 91.105.21.127 (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anderssen,A - Wyvill,M [B20] London (7), 1851 1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 a6 3.a4 Nc6 4.Nc3 e6 5.d3 g6 6.Nge2 Bg7 7.0-0 Nge7 8.f4 0-0 9.Bd2 d5 10.Bb3 Nd4 11.Nxd4 Bxd4+ 12.Kh1 Bd7 13.exd5 Bxc3 14.Bxc3 exd5 15.Bf6 Be6 16.f5 Bxf5 17.Rxf5 gxf5 18.Qh5 Qd6 19.Qh6 Qxf6 20.Qxf6 1-0 Soltis's "improvement" is of minor significance. Black is fine if on move 14 he takes on d5 with the Knight avoiding the pin on e7, and 15...Be6 is the loser, overlooking the strength of White's next move. Dan Quigley (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Taimanov Variation split-out reverted
I have reverted the split-out of Taimanov Variation. This is not because I don't think a separate article on the Taimanov cannot be created (it is a major variation, and along with the Kan it has a separate section in Modern Chess Openings), but because the text in the split-out article here was just a copy of the text here, without the context. This made readability more difficult. With only a two paragraphs, it is covered well in this article, but if expanded, it may need to be split out. One change I have made compared to the previous Taimanov Variation page, is making it a disambiguation, rather than a redirect, since the Taimanov is also a line of the Modern Benoni. If this section is split out again to a separate article, it should be at Sicilian Defense, Taimanov Variation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulla Natas(c)ha Persson
Her name is spelt two different ways within one paragraph. Could someone who knows which is correct please emend this? 91.107.159.248 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-sicilians
Would of thought this term is so common that it's use as a heading would add to a readers knowledege. SunCreator (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

New Article on Sveshnikov Sicilian?
Do you think a new, separate article on the Sveshnikov Sicilian would be appropriate? Statistics show that it is currently one of the most fashionable Sicilians for Black, and it has been played at some point by most of the World's top players, such as Kasparov, Kramnik, Radjabov, Leko, Carlsen, etc. Qiik (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, we have tried avoiding articles on variations, but the Sveshnikov is one of the lines which can have a separate article. Not so much because it's been played by top players, but because there is a vast amount of theory on the line, and a fair amount of history. Since several books have been written about that line, there should be enough material to research and persuade even skeptics that the Sveshnikov is notable. Now, I would not recommend a spin out just to make a stub article, but if someone wants to make a reasonably lengthy piece on the Sveshnikov, then I'm all for it. The Dragon and Najdorf have separate articles already, and the Sveshnikov has a good case for joining that club. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Order Slightly Altered and Need for Classical Variation Page
Large databases of master games reveal that the order of popularity of Black systems after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 was otherwise than the order presented. The Dragon Defense is actually second to the Najdorf. Given the option of deleting the wording that the sections were being presented in order of popularity or reordering the sections I thought the latter the better choice. By the way, three of the four major responses has its own article, but the Classical Variation 5...Nc6 appears not to. Anyone care to tackle adding that section? Dan Quigley (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

60 memorable games
I think the sentence about the frequency of the Sicilian in My 60 memorable Games should be taken out. The reason is that it is not a representative sample, unlike the other statistics. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I do think it is fair to mention Fischer on the list of players who played the Sicilian against 1.e4, and who contributed heavily to the theory of this opening, the Poisoned Pawn and various Bc4 lines perhaps being the most notable examples. But I see no reason to limit the statistic to one book. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Talking about Fischer's use of the Sicilian and contributions is fine. I just don't think that stating the number of Sicilians in his book is significant.  He played 1.e4 in all of the games in the book and he answered 1. e4 with the Sicilian every time except for one 1. e4 e5 Kings Gambit against Spassky.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, his opponents seemed to play 1.d4 to avoid the Sicilian. At any rate, this is not a representative statistic. Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the sentence: "In Fischer's famous collection of his games, My 60 Memorable Games, 22 (37%) of the games are Sicilians. ". Bubba73 (talk), 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Defence vs Defense
I don't really understand why the article would use "defense". The edit summary saying that a bit sourced from Emms requires British spelling was a flawed rationale for a correct change. Normally article spelling is made internally consistent (with the exception of quotes). In this case the spelling should match the article title. See WP:ENGVAR. Quale (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When I added the sentence I typed "defense". When I restored it, I changed it to "defence", which is how the article title is.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize; I had misinterpreted the edits. I should instead have said that I don't understand why someone would remove a cited sentence relevant to the article over a spelling dispute instead of fixing the spelling.  Maybe you didn't either, because you restored the sentence and made the fix.  Quale (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Editing on an iPhone, can't scroll to edit inline large text section, so could NOT edit the spelling. SunCreator (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In chess articles on Wikipedia, I've noticed that 'defence' and 'defense' are used in almost haphazard fashion, both in titles and the articles themselves. I'm American, though I was raised on British English (as may be seen in my edits), so half the time, I don't know what to make of it! Hushpuckena (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's primarily a matter of who started the article. If an American, "defense" will likely be used, if a Brit, "defence". (If the opening or its originator has a nationality, e.g. English Defence, Owen's Defence, Fischer Defense, that should take precedence.) Subsequent edits are supposed to use American English or British English as the original version did, but sometimes people overlook this, so you get "defense" and "defence" in the same article. Krakatoa (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What, no mention of my favorite Anti-Sicilian 2.e5?
Anyone else think 2.e5 is worth mentioning? It stops Black from playing e5 or Nf6. White can protect the e5 pawn with f4 and trade the e5 pawn off when Black pushes the d or f pawn. I'm kind of shocked that there are 10+ moves that beat out my favorite 2.e5! for a mention in the article. Synesthetic (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see in the various online databses that 2.e5 has been played a few times, albeit with rather poor results for White. However, in order to write about something, the WP:V and WP:NOR policies require us to reliably source the material, and so far I haven't seen anything which does that. The only book I have on Anti-Sicilians is Palliser's Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and that book doesn't cover 2.e5 at all. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any references for 2.e5. Houdini gives Black a slight +.20 edge after the move is played but the material remains even in the lines I'm seeing. I'm liking 2.Qh5 more now. After 2...Nf6 3.Qxc5 Nxe4, White can play 4.Qe3. Synesthetic (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ray Charles Gordon variation
I agree with SunCreator's edit here where the paragraph about at accelerated Maroczy Bind with 3.c4 is marked as dubious. The book which is referenced in the paragraph appears to be self-published and the author, Ray Charles Gordon, does not have any credentials. The claims of "For four years, Ray was an aspiring World Chess Champion" are totally without merit, and Mr. Gordon does not appear to have been a master, let alone a grandmaster or a serious contender for the World Championship, or any other championship for that matter. From looking at the Amazon sales page, the one reviewer seems to agree with that assessment.

Also, looking at the claim, that Black must more or less play 3...e5 as a response, then I am more inclined to believe the top grandmasters. Let's look at who has not read this book, and blunders away with 3...g6?? instead of 3...e5!: (games list with 3...g6) Hmm... It appears that the likes of Anand, Ivanchuk, Andersson, Hort, and Reshevsky have happily played 3...g6 instead of 3...e5 in this position.

The entire paragraph is based on a source which is unreliable and I believe it should be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I removed it. Quale (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not listed
MaxBrowne, I've already commented on this kind of objection ("isn't listed in WP:WTA"). The "Puffery" section of that page speaks of "Words such as these". The lists there aren't meant to be comprehensive, and it's common sense that "humorous" falls into the same category as the words "fortunately" and "happily" (which are listed on that page). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also "common sense" that the name "Toilet Variation" was given with humorous intent, and the humorous wording in the source supports this. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the text as "this name is funny", rather than as "this name was given with humorous intent". Is there some way to reword it to make this clearer? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3O requested. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon first reading I parsed the sentence the same way Toccata quarta did. Frankly, I think the humour is self-evident (or indeed, "common sense"), so adding the word to the sentence doesn't really add new information. (Omit needless words.) It would be more useful, for example, to note *who* came up with the idea while sitting on the toilet (I believe it was Mark Hebden). Also, the link to Silman's site is dead, and Silman is far from the best authority to cite regarding the strength of Tal's Gambit in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * yeah i read that it was Hebden (in a Gary Lane book I think but I don't have it to cite). The Silman link can be resurrected from the wayback machine if required but maybe there's a better source out there. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the WP:3O request because to me this issue is still unresolved. There is also the broader issue of the interpretation of the words to watch guideline. In my opinion some editors have adopted a far too strict interpretation of it. Another example (different editor) was the removal of the word "popular" from the Chess.com article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! I came here to try to give a third opinion, but I can't do that because there are already more than two editors involved. However, rather than just leave you to it, I thought I'd make a suggestion, which please feel free to ignore if you like: there isn't really any dispute here, it's just a question of detail of wording. That's easily discussed, but hasn't been. As a starting point, I propose "White may decline the gambit with 3.Nc3, the "Toilet Variation", named for where it was first thought of"; I'm sure someone will improve on that, and it shouldn't be too hard to find something you can all live with. Perhaps. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly. (I also interpreted the original text same way Toccata and Cobblet did. Toccata's Is there some way to reword it to make this clearer? was in good faith and to the point and was undeserving of the hostile editsum i try to improve this page, you just quibble over wordings. I agree w/ the consensus here that the article s/n tell readers in WP's voice what is humorous and what is not -- they can decided that for themselves. I agree there's no issue here except copyediting to ensure not WP's voice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There you go poking that dead horse again. Are you still going to maintain that this was not a personal attack? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify my earlier opinion: to me the insertion of the words "humorously named" is not an issue of MoS guidelines, but proper formal writing. The sentence conveys the same information without those words, and does so in a more neutral manner. Those words may not be something MOS:WTW explicitly addresses, but I think the point Toccata was trying to make was valid. I have brought up other points concerning the surrounding paragraph just to point out that there are more pressing issues of factual accuracy to address in the article than this relatively minor stylistic concern. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How common is 2. Nc3?
2.Nc3 is White's second most common move responding to 1.e4 c5.

The move 2.Nc3 has been played at high-level grandmaster chess (Gelfand and Short have played it) but only rarely.

These two sentences (both from the article) clearly contradict each other. 2.24.117.123 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Someone has fixed this now. Thanks.2.24.119.101 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sicilian Defence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123175151/http://batgirl.atspace.com/Renplayers.html to http://batgirl.atspace.com/Renplayers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

clarification needed on Chekhover variation commentary
In §Open Sicilian: 2.Nf3 and 3.d4: 2...d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3, it says:


 * Black can avoid this line [1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4] by playing 3...Nf6, when 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 returns to main lines.

However, it's not clear how 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 is preventing a subsequent 4.Qxd4. And, in fact, when i consult a chess database such as chess-db.com master games, i see that 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Bb5 Bd7 6.Bxc6 most often leads to 6...Bxc6 7.Nc3 Nf6, which is simply a transposition of 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxc6 Bxc6 with 5...Nc6 6.Bb5 Bd7 7.Bxc6 Bxc the most common sequence after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4 5.Qxd4. So, if this prevention statement is even correct, then it needs to be firstly explained to your presumably novice chess playing audience. If it's explained elsewhere, then the explanation should be linked to. Secondly, this should probably sourced as well since, as far as i can see, it seems to be wrong in that there is no such prevention. Rather, it's merely a transposition with a low probability of occurrence which can probably be attributed largely to the lower probability of 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 relative to 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 cxd4. – ishwar  (speak)  21:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I have rewritten the paragraph to indicate that 3...Nf6 may be used to avoid the Prins, not 4.Qxd4. Cobblet (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Good. Now that, i can follow. Thanks. – ishwar  (speak)  22:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Chess diagrams
I have to complain because some other users are deleting my chess diagrams based on nothing. I create the diagrams to give a "concise summary of gameplay details (specific point values, etc..." and they are reverting them. I want to give a brief compendium and provide summaries of chess knowledge (as the mission of Wikipedia is), but they are socavating one pillar of Wikipedia "Wikipedia has no firm rules (Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone)".  Many chess articles lack diagrams and are also poorly developed. Any improvement seems like "illegal moves".Mycoandres (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Improvements are welcome, which is why we have kept four of the diagrams you added to illustrate the sidelines. Further diagrams do not add new information while putting undue attention on those sidelines and making the article as a whole less concise. Cobblet (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How can it be possible that diagrams do not add new information? They illustrate the key movements. These are so fundamental that every chess book has diagrams at some extent, even in the front page. I mean, they are not going to be on the front page if they are not important. Also, the argument that "making the article as a whole less concise" is invalid because it has different sections and they are clearly delimited at the beginning of the article. Finally, readers have different levels of attention. Some of them are analytical, others visual. Provide a visual aid to readers to enhance their compression of the article. I am going to settle the topic but I really hope that other editors improve the current article with "proper" diagrams instead of deleting information. Mycoandres (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Mycoandres
 * Mycoandres, where does the logic, that the article s/ be refomatted to support "visual" readers not so familiar/attentive w/ algebraic notation, by including extra diagrams, end? (It would seem to end w/ a diagram included to illustrate every move given in algebraic, in every article! p.s. That's how Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess was written, using diagrams, w/o the need for knowledge of notation. But that was a special-purpose basic instruction manual, not an encyclopedia.) --IHTS (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "They illustrate the key movements", i.e., they present information already contained within the article. Therefore they do not add new information. If you would like to make an animated gif to illustrate the sequence 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3, that would be a lot better than adding one diagram to illustrate the position after 2.d4, another for 2.d4 cxd4, and still another for 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 (we have kept the last of these). Cobblet (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am stepping down from the argument. I really want to reply but it's going to be useless. I resign, you both win. Period. Now, this article has been rated as C-Class which means that "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study." Maybe if we focus on improving the content to B-class "Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher" it will be a better investment of time. Kind regards. Mycoandres (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Mycoandres
 * Indeed we will reach B-class more quickly if we focus on satisfying needs of a serious student or researcher instead of debating cosmetic details one particular editor finds wanting. Cobblet (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion, but I also like diagrams over notation. I mean notation is just a shorthand for the actual board which is more closely approximated by diagrammatic representation. As I see it, notation is used in books because it reduces printing costs. With all the fluff on wikipedia, I don't see how reducing the number of diagrams is needed to reduce costs. (Maybe I'm wrong about this?) Fischer's book sounds cool! Preferable to animated gifs (since you can't pause them) would be the clickable board thing that is used on some other language wikipedia. I don't think that went anywhere on en.wiki, but it's a shame.... peace! – ishwar  (speak)  04:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)