Talk:Chess opening

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk was getting pretty long and I hope it will get even longer, so I separated it into sections. I hope this is an improvement. Feel free to revert if it is worse. --Quale 02:14, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Organization of the article

[edit] Separate page for each opening

I think it would be better to break up this page into each opening... a separate page for Queen's Gambit, etc.--Sonjaaa 07:33, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's good to have an overview of openings here, but of course, there's no reason why individual openings (and eventually even specific variations) can't have a page of their own; some of them already do (Ruy Lopez is one example). --Camembert

[edit] Overhaul classification of chess openings section

I really think that the entire chess openings section could do with an overhaul. It contains articles of widely varying quality and correctness that are unevenly dispersed (e.g. there is no page for the Giuoco Piano, or the Reti, and in the main page I even saw somebody mark the Evans Gambit with a ?!. The King's Gambit page was full of lies; I gave it a quick once over but it is still very bad.) The job is too big for me to do alone; perhaps if there are enough chess players here we could divvy up the work, everybody writing the article about his favorite opening systems with some sort of standardization? (This post was added by 204.52.215.102)

I agree with 204.52.215.102. The list and descriptions of the opening should be consolidated. Right now it is a mess of descriptions and diagrams of different formats. Some have "main article:..." above the diagram, some have "see article ..." embedded in the description. Some important openings are missing entirely from this list (e.g. the Benoni Defense). This article served its purpose well when it was created, but now many of the openings have received individual articles and as this page has expanded we have lost uniformity. I would like to suggest that we do the following, but I think some input is in order before it is carried out:

  1. Create an individual article on the Queen's Indian Defense, the last opening here missing an individual article. DONE!, but I see we are actually still missing one; the Modern Defense. DONE BY Neilc!
  2. Change all redirects of individual openings from this page to the proper opening article. DONE!
  3. Remove all diagrams and descriptions of the openings from this page, merge any information which might be lost into the appropriate individual opening article. DONE mostly by Neilc!
  4. Instead, on this page we put a list of openings with a link to each individual article, along with the moves which define it. PRETTY MUCH COMLETED BY Quale! well done!

Example: White opens with 1.e4

Sjakkalle 12:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible plan to me. I agree the existing page needs a lot of cleanup, and the right direction for the future is to move most of the information into individual pages for each opening. Neilc 23:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modern Defense is now a separate page, and the redirect to Chess openings has been removed. I wasn't sure if we should just make Modern redirect to Pirc Defense, or if there's any point in having a separate page... Neilc 03:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Modern is a different opening and deserved an individual place. Thanks Neilc for your effort. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved most of the descriptions of individual openings off this page, and merged any lost content into the appropriate articles for the individual openings themselves. A few openings still need doing (Pirc, Modern, some of the Indians). Other ideas for improvement:

  • Divide responses to 1.e4 into symmetrical (1. ... e5) and asymmetrical
  • Reorder openings based on some assessment of their popularity
  • Link more openings from this page; I linked a few that were missing (Bird's, Reti, Philidor's), but there are probably more.
  • Make the pages describing individual openings more consistent with eachother. For example, different articles use different styles for presenting diagrams of positions — we should decide on one style and use it consistently.
Neilc 05:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have continued the good work of Neilc, I have added the Benoni Defense, Benko Gambit, Grob's Attack and others. There are probably still more openings to be sorted and some are in need of an article. I will list some of them as red-links so that people can create articles if they wish. As for sorting I suggest sorting them like the Oxford Companion to Chess would, that is the moves are sorted alphabetically, first by arrival square then by piece name (pawns come frst though). Examples:

  • c5 is before c6.
  • f3 is before Bf3 is before Kf3 is before Nf3 is before Qf3 is before Rf3.
  • Nc5 is before Nc6.
  • 0-0 and 0-0-0 come last.

Neilc is right that different articles use different formats, and it would be nice to get some uniformity there, but having different formats in different articles is less ugly than having different formats in the same article. Sjakkalle 08:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This reorganization is good. I think it would be better to emphasize the moves rather than the names. If the reader already knows the name of the opening, she wouldn't need this list, so I am changing

to

I think it would also be a good idea to split up the openings into more than 3 categories. What do you think about using the 5 categories used by MCO?

  1. Double King Pawn Openings (Open Games)
  2. Single King Pawn Openings (Semi-Open Games)
  3. Double Queen Pawn Openings (Closed Games)
  4. Indian Openings
  5. Flank Openings

--Quale 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other openings worth mentioning?

I've created this section so that we can keep a list of other openings we might want to mention in the article.

[edit] Unusual Queen's Pawn Openings

  • 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 Marshall Defense (added)
This is said to be unsound, but it might deserve a mention. Also, if we have the refutation, it should probably get its own short article. Marshall is said to have abandoned this opening after losing to Alekhine with it at Baden-Baden in 1925, although it looks like he got out of the opening OK and only lost later. Also, in that game used a different move order: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5. I don't know if that's the way Marshall usually played it. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 Symmetrical Defense (added)
This is an unusual line in the QGD. --Quale 01:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owen's Defense (added)

This opening has no name. 1. e4...b6

does anyone know this? Have you ever played an opening like this? 1. e4...b6 2. d4...Bb7 3. Bd3...e6 4. c4...f5 5. exf5...Bg2 6. Qh5...g6 7. fxg6...Bg7 8. gxh7+...Kf8 9. hxg8/Q+...Kxg8 Black is winning!!!!!!!!!!

1.e4 b6 is sometimes called the Owen Defence (or Owen's Defence) after John Owen, the 19th century English player, who did pretty well with it. --Camembert

[edit] Réti Opening (added)

A new section in 2.3 for the Reti Opening (1.Nf3) should be added.--Fermatprime 20:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to write it, but it should probably be made clear that not every game starting 1.Nf3 ends up as a Réti. --Camembert

[edit] Colle System (added)

It's now in the list of variations, but it needs a short description in the prose and also someone to actually create Colle System. Quale 06:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1.d4 Nc6

Does this deserve mention? I'm not certain what it's called. The Oxford Companion to Chess says Nimzowitsch Queen's Pawn Defence, which isn't a very attractive name. A widely distributed file of ECO codes calls it Lundin (Kevitz-Mikenas) Defense. MCO-14, NCO and BCO-2 all give some variations but don't name them. Quale 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other stuff

[edit] Ponziani question

Hey, I could use some help. A recent addition made to the open games section was

  • 1.e4 e5 2.c3 Ponziani's Opening

Is this really the Ponziani? I think it's just an unclassified King's Pawn Game. My references give 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 as the Ponziani (this line is actually played occasionally even today), so this is what I had originally put in the article. Now we have two entries for Ponziani's Opening. After 1.e4 e5 2.c3 then both 2...d5 and 2...Nf6 are good for Black. --Quale 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are right, a google check said that 1.e4 e5 2.c3 is called the Lopez Opening, I will correct that now. Sjakkalle 08:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Oxford Companion calls this the "Centre Pawn Opening" (they obviously weren't feeling very inspired that day). Lots of good work been done on these articles recently, by the way - congrats to all concerned. --Camembert

The Ponziani opening is 1. e4 e5 2. nf3 nc6 3. c3. I consider it worth mentioning. Falphin 18:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It was already there, so you added a dupe :-). Camembert cleaned it up, so it's all good. Quale 07:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classification of the Catalan

How should we classify the Catalan?

I temporarily put it in the Closed Games, but I should have payed closer attention because it's already in Indian Openings so I removed it from Closed. I'll add some text discussing it in the Indian Openings section. Quale 05:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] good job!

Thanks for all who have written this article. This is a job well-done. I encourage you all to add some multimedia and you'll be well on the way toward featuring it. DanKeshet 19:07, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Counter-Gambit" vs "Counter Gambit" vs "Countergambit"

Which spelling do we prefer? I've seen all three in print.

  • Counter-Gambit Perhaps the most common, but I hate to needlessly hyphenate. As words are used more often we tend to drop the hyphens. The simple word "today" was once "to-day". Used by The Oxford Companion to Chess.
  • Counter Gambit Used by Reuben Fine. I like this better than Counter-Gambit.
  • Countergambit Seems to be a newer spelling, MCO 14 uses it. It follows the pattern found in "Counterattack", which I believe is always a single unhyphenated word. I think I like this best.

We can create redirects as needed if we use the term in a title. Quale 06:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "countergambit" (one word) is the modern way to write it. "Cannot" used to be "can not," too. Krakatoa 21:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other responses to 1.d4

I will edit those(unless someone else does) when I have time to. I plan to do them all. Watch out for my spelling. Falphin 21:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that User:12.220.47.145 has created this section. I agree that putting the Dutch Defense and the Old Benoni under closed games is awkward (the Leningrad Dutch with ...g6 doesn't remotely resemble a Queen's Gambit), even though MCO uses this classification. I have cleaned up and trimmed the section somewhat, for instance, I felt that devoting so many words to the Englund in this article was not really needed, it's better reserved for the Englund Gambit article. "Kangaroo Defense" was certainly an "exotic" name I've never heard before, but there are google hits on it. I would have preferred "Keres Defense", but unless there are serious objections we can let the article stay at that name. I thought it was a rather common way to play, even if most games opening 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ quickly transpose to the Bogo-Indian or Nimzo-Indian. Sjakkalle 08:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Falphin are you the same one as 12.220.47.145? Sjakkalle 08:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Depends, if I forget to log in it is, but itsn't only used by me. The Kangaroo Defense is rare but I've never heard anyone call it the Keres Defense. Falphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the assertion from this section that Kasparov has occasionally played the Polish defence (1.d4 b5); there are no such games in the Chessbase Mega Database 2004. If anybody has another source with games where Kasparov played this, then perhaps it can go back in. --Camembert 13:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I can prove that, but I don't think it is that importantFalphin 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've made articles on the Wade defense and Franco-Sicilian defense but I'm having trouble finding info on the Polish defense and what is considered the Polish defense. I've seen three different variations. I always assumed it was just 1. d4 b5. Anyone know? Falphin 19:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Wade Defense actually had an article already, the Rat Defense, but since your article is better, I will convert the Rat Defense to a redirect to your new article. Sjakkalle 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New article

I plan to write an article on the Halloween Gambit. But I'm not for sure if that is what it's called. 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5?! Anyone know, other wise I will just write it under the above name.(I won't write it until Monday). Falphin 19:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is also called the Müller-Schulze Gambit. Acccording to The Halloween-Attack in the Four Knight Game, the Halloween name comes from the German magazine, Randspringer. The Halloween Gambit currently is mentioned in the Four Knights Game and Halloween Gambit is just a redirect. If there's a more material than would comfortably fit in the Four Knights article you can replace the redirect with an article. We should then put a link in the Four Knights Game to the new article. Quale 21:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

At present the Halloween Gambit is a mentioned in the Four Knights Game, so you may find a little information in that article. Otherwise you may want to check out Tim Krabbé's article [1]. Sjakkalle 06:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Halloween Attack from Open Games

I removed the Halloween Attack listing from Open Games section. It's just a variation of the Four Knights Game which is already on the list. I think this main article should be a survey, and we shouldn't try to list every variation of every opening here. Articles on individual openings can go into greater depth. Quale 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reti Opening/King's Indian Attack/Flank Openings

btw, this should be item 10, not 9.1. I don't know how to do that.

[Use two = signs to introduce a top-level section heading, and three for a subsection. I fixed it. Quale 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)]

I edited the descriptions of the Reti and KIA. Prior to my edit, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 was described as the "Reti Opening" and 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 as a "King's Indian Attack." Both of these are wrong. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 could be a Reti (it could also transpose to a QGD, Slav, or QGA in short order), but to imply that a Reti has to start with that sequence is wrong. I changed "Reti Opening" to just 1.Nf3 (which is how the article dedicated to that opening describes it). It's true, as Camembert noted above, that not all games starting 1.Nf3 end up as true Retis, but that's true of other openings (not all 1.c4 games end up as true Englishes, many 1.Nc3 games transpose to some other opening, etc.). It seems to me that a true Reti almost has to have one or both bishops fianchettoed, so I think I will add that.

As for the KIA, 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 is not yet a KIA, and may never be -- White has to play d3, Nbd2 and e4. I think the KIA usually arises from 1.e4, which is how I've described it, e.g. 1.e4 e6 (or 1...c6, 1...c5, etc.) 2.d3 d5 3.Nd2 followed by Ngf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 etc. I moved it under "Semi-Open Games" rather than the list of move one choices. It's not perfectly situated there, either, since one can certainly play it in 1.e4 e5 games, although one rarely sees that, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 2.d3. Krakatoa 21:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

These are difficult classification questions. I'm uncertain about the KIA. It is often reached from 1.e4, but yet somehow it seems to fit better in the Flank openings. We have an odd difficulty with Reti/KIA/Barcza System being pretty closely related, but maybe ending up in different categories. I'm not really sure what to suggest. The way it was set up originally was definitely a compromise, and there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. Quale 22:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree there's no perfect solution. Note also that "Flank Openings" is not too accurate. 1.e3 and 1.d3 certainly are not flank openings (at least not yet), and I'm not sure 1.Nc3 is, either (white usually follows up with d4 and/or e4, although of course 1.Nc3 d5 2.Nf3 is also possible -- although even there, White will usually move a center pawn at his next opportunity). This is sort of arbitrary, but one approach would be to classify as "Flank Openings," say, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.g3, 1.b3, 1.b4, 1.f4, King's Indian Attack, and Barcza System -- this amounts to "respectable and semi-respectable opening lines typified by play on one or both flanks." Then one could lump the rest of the openings into "Unusual First Moves." Krakatoa 00:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, maybe my idea isn't as arbitrary as I claimed it was. The lines I classified as "Flank Openings" are, I think, identical or close to what Keene called "Flank Openings" in his old book with that title. 1.g4, 1.f3, 1.Nh3, 1.a4 and such are geometrically "Flank Openings" but not respectable enough to deserve the term. Krakatoa 00:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The classification of the openings has already been reorganized a few times, and I like your suggestion. The most recent change added the "Other Black responses to 1.d4" section to include openings like the Benoni and the Dutch which were previously in the Closed Games category. (Although this has been done sometimes by others like MCO, it isn't a good fit which prompted the creation of the new section.) I say go ahead and create a new "Unusual first moves" section. (Wikipedia section titling policy says only the first word is capitalized unless it's a proper name. I'm not sure we did it right with "Open games", "Closed games", and "Indian systems" since these are sometimes used as proper names.) I may do it myself if I get to it before you do. Also, I see that we should revise the stuff I wrote in the intro to the "Classification of chess openings" section that says there are 7 common White first moves. It should be 8. I forgot about the Sokolsky, maybe because it's kind of awkward to explain in terms of development and center control, although I guess no worse than Larsen's Opening.) Quale 14:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The KIA is part of the Reti. Please check ECO lists (KIA is listed as A07, with move order 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3), we should defer to ECO in cases of uncertainty like this. Example: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=A07 Themindset 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Questions re: characterization of Réti and KIA
MCO-14 says the Réti originally (1920s) meant almost any game starting with Nf3 and c4. Today, MCO says Réti only refers to variations in which Black plays d5, White plays Nf3 and c4 and fianchettoes at least one bishop and does not play an early d4. MCO uses the key moves 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 for the Réti. At one time this article used that as well. MCO goes on to call 1.Nf3, 2.g3 the Barcza, saying that it often transposes into the Réti.
For the KIA, MCO uses 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2, 4.0-0, 5.d3, 6.Nbd2, 7.e4 its characteristic moves, but gives examples of transpositions from 1.e4 from the French, Caro-Kann, and Sicilian. If we're going to include the KIA in the flank openings we might want to use this sequence ourselves and mention the very common transposition possibilities, or else it will look odd to have a 1.e4 opening in the flank section. BCO 2 doesn't require e4, d3, and Nbd2 for White but simply says the e4/d3 pawn center is common in the KIA. Quale 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I like MCO's definition of the KIA. I agree that giving MCO's move order as the main one makes sense, since as you say it looks funky having a 1.e4 opening plopped into the flank openings (although I suspect that is how the KIA is most often reached). I think you pretty much need d3 and e4 for a KIA (Nbd2 isn't totally obligatory; the N could go to c3 or even a3, since you see those knight placements sometimes in regular King's Indians). If W doesn't play d3 and e4 the game usually transposes to some other opening like a Reversed Benoni, Reversed Benko Gambit, or Reversed Gruenfeld, or stays a Reti (for example, if W plays g3 and c4, and Black plays dxc4). If Black plays ...d5 and an early ...Bf5 it's a London System.

Incidentally, the junk like 1.Nh3, 1.a4, 1.f3 and such could alternatively be called "Irregular Openings" rather than "unusual first moves." Krakatoa 17:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Knight's Tango"

This should be item 11, not 9.2. I don't know how to do that.

I changed "Knight's Tango" here to "Black Knights Tango" in text. I think it should also be changed in the article on that opening. "Black Knights Tango" is what Georgi Orlov, the popularizer of this opening, calls it in the two editions of his book, and that is what I have seen it called elsewhere. I have never seen "Knight's Tango" anywhere else, and it makes no sense. Just one knight ("Knight's") is tangoing? With whom/what? (Sorry -- forgot to put my handle. Krakatoa 23:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC))

To move a page, use the "move" button (which is next to the history button). As long as you are moving to a blank page or a page whose only history is creating a redirect to the orginal page, there should be no problem. Otherwise a temporary deletion is required to "make way", see Wikipedia:Requested moves. I agree that "Black" should be in the opening name, but there are three slightly different variations, and I'm a bit unsure which is best.
  1. Black Knights Tango
  2. Black Knight's Tango
  3. Black Knights' Tango
I'm leaning most towards the last title, since there are two knights I think the apostrophe should come after the s. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Krakatoa is right, "Black Knight's Tango" doesn't make sense and "Knight's Tango" worse, so it's option 1 or 3 or possibly "Knights' Tango". Orlov's book uses the third option, "Black Knights' Tango". I think Orlov's use takes precedence, so that's what we should use. If not for this, I would lean toward the first, apostrophe-free version if we could get away with it without doing too much damage to the English language. English rules on the apostrophe are really a hassle, so I am happy to write Two Knights Defense. As a final option, we could always simply call it the Mexican Defense and make the others redirects.... Quale 13:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I had thought Orlov called it Black Knights Tango, which is why I wrote it apostrophe-less, as I did. Maybe he did in the first edition, I don't know. But Quale is correct that Orlov (at least now, if perhaps not originally) uses the apostrophe: Black Knights' Tango. Happily, he is using it after the "s," where it belongs. So I agree with Sjakkalle and Quale that "Black Knights' Tango" is the way to go. Krakatoa 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Since we seem to have a consensus, I went ahead and moved it. "Black Knights' Tango" it is. Thanks for the input. Krakatoa 14:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering of "Open Games"

I reordered these as best I could in terms of popularity without consulting a database -- e.g. most popular W 2nd move+ most popular B 2nd move + most popular W 3rd move first, most popular W 2nd move+ most popular B 2nd move + second most popular W 3rd move second, etc. This seems to violate the "alphabetical order by move" principle evidently used in the other lists of variations (e.g. first openings where W moves something on the a-file, then openings where W moves something on the b-file, etc.). If people don't like it, we can revert -- although I think "Three Knights Game" and "Danish Gambit" need to be revised along the lines that I have done it. Krakatoa 18:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about the ordering of the opening lines in the lists, although I can give a few reasons why the ordering used in the Oxford Companion (basically alpha sort, with pawn moves sorting before moves of any other pieces and I think castling sorting last) was originally suggested. The Oxford sort has the advantage of being a fixed sort order, so it's easy to tell where each opening will go. Finding an opening in the list now requires searching the entire list or knowing roughly how popular we think the opening is, and if you know that already you might not need this article anyway. The Oxford order completely specified, so disagreements are eliminated. It doesn't depend on criteria like popularity, which aren't completely specified (GMs or club players?, OTB or correspondence?, all of recorded chess history or last 20 years or last 10 years or last 5 years?, etc.) We can order the prose discussion of the openings by popularity, so the most important openings get discussed first and the less important ones go last. (You can see this ordering in the prose in the Open games section.)
Your description of the Three Knights is good. I don't think the change to the Danish Gambit is really what we want. One problem is that some openings fall through the classifications if you use that definition: the Half-Danish with 4.Nxc3 recommended by Alekhine doesn't qualify as either a Center Game or a Danish in that scheme. (It will often transpose into a position reachable from the Scotch, but that isn't certain.) Another problem is that reference works like MCO consider 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 to be the characteristic moves of the Danish. Of course in reality the Danish is just a gambit variation of the Center Game. The fact that it's considered separate and the many QGD lines aren't is of course largely a historical accident due to the Open Games being extensively explored earlier than the Closed Games, just as all of the Italian game lines (Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Two Knights, and Hungarian) could really just be variations of of a single opening. You can see other quirks of trying to choose characteristic moves for the opening here: for the Center Game we include 3.Qxd4 although if you look at Center Game we treat lines with 3.Nf3 and even 3.f4!? just as do most opening references. In the Semi-Open Games we've got a couple: For the French our key moves are just 1.e4 e6, although its still easy at that point to enter lines that aren't normally considered the French. The Franco-Benoni Defense is listed separately here as well although I have mixed feelings about including it. It usually isn't treated as a French line in most opening references so it needs a separate article, but on the other hand it's a fairly minor line to list here. The Caro-Kann is much the same. For classification purposes the C-K is just 1.e4 c6, but it's essential for novices to know that the typical followup is 2.d4 d5. Quale 04:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Open Games vs. other openings

You guys have done an amazing job with these opening articles so far. I do have a quibble however: the openings after 1.e4 e5 are receiving far more article space than their popularity would merit. Compare the coverage of the Sicilian with that of the Ruy Lopez for example. Of course I'm not suggesting removing anything, rather more attention could be devoted to other openings. If you can cover the rest as well you've covered 1.e4 e5 then it will be a remarkable accomplishment.

[edit] Richter-Veresov Attack popularity inconsistency

This page says that "The Richter-Veresov is played at the top levels of chess", however on the Richter-Veresov Attack page it states "The opening has never been very popular at the top level, but various prominent players have employed it occasionally". I'm not familiar enough with the top level of chess play to decide which of these statements is more true, but hopefully someone with the knowledge will be able to fix this up a bit.

It is definitely not a very common opening at the top levels. Themindset 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey's bum etc...

I complete agree with the anonymous user who removed the Monkey's bum variation. There are far too many of these silly variations appearing in this article, it's as if every reader who comes upon it is compelled to add their own little coffee-house line. I think this misses the point of the article, and perhaps a new article entitled Silly chess openings or perhaps the more professional sounding Esoteric chess openings should be created to catalogue such lines... What do you fellows think? Themindset 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree too, that variation is extremely minor. By the way, I think that anon is none other than Quale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for adding the darn thing! I had no idea that I was contributing to a ongoing problem... you see, I came across the Monkey's Bum via the random article tool, and I thought it needed some attention, so I took it under my wing. I'm sure you all understand that after you spend a certain amount of time on an article, it seems a shame to see it virtually orphaned. This article seemed like a good place to plant a link, and I figured that it would be removed if it was inappropriate. Well, I was right! Cheers, Melchoir 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you start an article called Unusual chess openings, I think that would be an excellent article to create. Themindset 09:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, but I don't know enough about chess to do it. Someone else will have to step up, I guess. Melchoir 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Would the Fred Defence fall under this category? I added to the list of alternative responses to 1. e4 because it is notable as being pretty much the worst possible response, but I guess it should probably be classed as unusual? Damburger 13:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Defence is OK to add to this main chess opening page as it is an opening, and not a variation of an opening like Monkey Bum is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening goals edit

Removed pawn structure as one of the main goals of the opening. There are many other plans typically carried out in the opening but I don't think destruction of the pawn structure is the most important or the most common of these. I added these in an extra paragraph.

Maybe it is an idea to keep the pawn structure mentioning (as the last item in the list), but add the other plans in a more extensive way. Bob.v.R 12:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I think anon was right in deleting it. Firstly, if we mention pawn structure, then we have to mention a whole slew of strategic plans (trading/ceding the bishop pair, control of key squares, gaining space, etc.) and it becomes a discussion of chess strategy in general. It's also overwhelming for a beginner who's only looking for a few simple tips. Actually, the "chess strategy and tactics" article needs expansion and probably needs to be split up into two articles - maybe that's where we should put that sort of thing. Walter Chan 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Walter, the article is not meant to be tips for beginners, it is supposed to be an encyclopedic treatment of the concept of the Opening in chess. Themindset 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Open/Closed games' terminology

Why are certain openings called 'open'/'closed'? This terminology could do with explanation. 84.70.185.115 18:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I must admit that I am not 100% sure about this, but I think 1.e4 e5 are called "open" because there will usually be a clearing of pawns in the centre early on in the game leading to an "open" position. In 1.e4 e5 openings, White usually plays d2-d4 sooner or later, and the pawn clearance starts with either ...exd4 or dxe5. In 1.d4 openings, the central pawns have a tendency to stay on the board, making the position "closed". There are naturally exceptions, the closed variation of the Ruy Lopez can be lead to a pretty closed position, while the positions arising from the Albin Counter-Gambit are hardly closed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a bang-on explanation Sjakkalle. Themindset 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.d4 d5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bf4

Is there a opening that starts like this that is significant enough to put in this article? It is similar to the Richter-Veresov Attack but it is more like a mirrored Italian Game rather than a mirrored Ruy Lopez. Either way, could someone give me the name of this opening and maybe direct me to some analysis on it? I've been playing this lately and I want to get some insight. Thanks.128.195.18.170 21:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is called the Barry Attack. See [2] for links. Krakatoa 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6)

I deleted the Horwitz Defense (1.d4 e6) from the article. There is no article on it, it is highly obscure, and it seems almost certain, absent ridiculous play by one or both sides, to transpose to some other opening such as the French Defense (after 2.e4 d5), Queen's Gambit Declined (2.c4 d5), Franco-Benoni (2.e4 c5), Dutch Defense (2.c4 f5) Nimzo-Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Kangaroo Defense, Bogo-Indian Defense, Sicilian Defense (2.e4 c5 3.Nf3), Benoni (2.e4 c5 3.d5), English Defense, Hippopotamus Defense, or Kingston Defense. If anyone disagrees, so ahead and write an article on the Horwitz Defense, then revert my deletion of it. Krakatoa 15:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening nomenclature

I've made some changes to the beginning of the section opening nomenclature, removing egregious errors of fact (viz., an allegation regarding the absence of chess notation, which has been known at least since the 9th century in Arab countries, and the 13th in Europe) and replacing them with some general history regarding systematic opening study. JStripes 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You're wrong about the "egregious errors of fact" regarding chess notation. Arab practice is irrelevant, as these names are not Arabic. I'm unfamiliar with your source that chess notation was known in Europe in the 13th century—the Göttingen manuscript dates from 1471 and I don't think it is an example of a practical chess notation. Graham Burgess, The Mammoth Book of Chess has some sample moves as described by Damiano in 1562, almost a hundred years later:
Thou shalt remove thy King to the second house of the kinges bishoppe
...then he shall be forced to saue his Knight in the second house of the King

The desirability of attaching names to opening sequences of moves as a shorthand is clear. 24.177.112.146 06:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/Talk%7EChess_opening_9843.html"