Talk:French Defence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Kasparov win?
Re: "Garry Kasparov experimented with it in the early 1990s, gaining a widely publicized victory over Nigel Short in 1991" on the Exchange variation. I have checked two on-line databases which give this game as a draw, ending in a black piece sac that secured a perpetual and thus spoilt Kasparov's almost total domination of the game, and virtual refutation of the 4. Nf3 Bg4 line of the Exchange (which otherwise score very well for black.) If I recall correctly from an old Informator I know longer have, this was from Tilburg 1991 and Kasparov then also used the Exchange to defeat Korchnoi in the same tournament, in a ...c5-c4 line for black. Using it twice in the same tournament probably got the publicity the author of this article is thinking; either that or both databases are wrong. Kasparov also uses this variation in simultaneous displays, incidentally. Anyway: it would be nice if someone with a good off-line database like Chessbase could confirm/clarify/change the 1991 reference. Tommy-Chivs 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct - I have removed the reference. youngvalter 06:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We need to add the Chigorin 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 --Sonjaaa 12:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Kingston Defence?
Hi Gavin, welcome to WP. Are there any references to the "Kingston Defence"? I couldn't find anything in google. I see that you authored the now out of print "Crack the French: How To Play the Kingston Defence", ISBN 095141030X. I see that Amazon.co.uk has it. Quale 17:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notation
This "standardized notation" of 1 e4 e6 (see history for most recent edit by Walter Chan), rather than 1.e4 e6, has to go. It is not standard, and is contrary to the notation (with the periods) used in every other chess article I've seen in Wikipedia. Krakatoa 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I put all the periods in. Krakatoa 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- ThreeE raised this issue earlier with me, and this was my reply: "I've removed the periods because the standard used in printed chess material is to omit them (see books published by Everyman, Gambit, Batsford, Olms, etc.). Informant uses both a period and a space (excessive imo) and I think PGN does so as well. I personally prefer omitting them because I think the moves look "cleaner" that way." If periods are to be used, then there's still the issue of whether to write 1.e4 e6 or 1. e4 e6 - there needs to be more discussion on this. Walter Chan 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Convention here is to list lines like this: 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 Nc6
- For single White moves: 1.e4
- For single Black moves: 1...e6
- No particular reason, just the way things are done here and in most modern books I have. Like I said before, I'm not sure I care much, but anything else would result a departure from most pages here. Additionally, the chess opening theory wikibook does rely on this notation for various additional reasons.
- ThreeE 01:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- What ThreeE said. If you look at the chess articles on Wikipedia, the vast majority have one period and no space after each move, e.g. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, etc. Krakatoa 14:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] re. Kingston Defence
Quale -- thanks for doing the detective work on this. The book on the Kingston Defence, which analysed some of the games played in the 1980s and before, was officially published in 1989. If you look up the 1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5 sequence on Chess Base [1], the picture is reasonably clear. It's a defence that was mainly played in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but has since fallen into only occasional use. That's life -- many of us get married, have kids and, for brief periods, believe there are more important things than chess. The book is in need of an update, I admit. Strangely, while playing anonymously on the Web, I encounter people playing this defence against me, so the idea of 2 ...f5!? hasn't died. Gavin Wilson
