Talk:Queen's Gambit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale. |
The trap 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3 "only" wins a piece, not a rook. Black can play 6...Nc6 7.Qxc6+ Bd7. Still Dbenbenn should be credited for his wikifying of the page. 129.177.61.123 12:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My bad. I'm not a chess expert. If you haven't done so already, feel free to clarify this point within the article. dbenbenn | talk 13:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What if black defends the pawn with his bishop : 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3. e3 be2 ? The pawn is hard to win back and the bishop also prevents white trying qc3.
- First, if White wants his pawn back instantly after 3....Be6 he can play 4.Qa4+. On the other hand if White just develops normally and stays a pawn down he should have enough compensation. The bishop on e6 is misplaced, blocking the e-pawn and if White gets a knight to g5 or f4 it will probably have to move and let go of the pawn. When I checked this database and entered the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 Be6, I found 96 games, in fact Black has won a fair number of them. Sadly this database is prone to downtime, if you get 0 games it is probably down for maintenance. Sjakkalle 08:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 is the main line) Be6?! (3...e5! with the idea 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Be6= is usual) 4.Qa4+(?), I believe Black can keep the pawn with 4...c6! and if 5 Bxc4?? b5! Sjakkalle is right about the possibility of White playing normally instead, treating the line as a true gambit where Black's bishop is misplaced. If White wants the pawn back ASAP, I think 4.Na3 does the trick. Krakatoa 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contested move request
Resolved. Move idea abandoned by proponent (not as invalid but as too-uphill a battle).The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Queen's Gambit -> Queen's gambit Rationale: Naming conventions — game moves are not proper nouns (except inasmuch as they contain one, e.g. "Johnson's bluff", versus "johnson's bluff" or more to the point "Johnson's Bluff"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- All other articles in Category:Chess openings are capitalised, suggesting that they are all treated as proper nouns. --Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just because a mistake has been made in more than one article doesn't make it a non-mistake. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- The nominator is incorrect: "Queen's Gambit" is a proper noun and is correctly captitalized. The page should not be moved. Quale 20:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Game names themselves are not proper nouns (e.g. "chess, billiards and hockey", not "Chess, Billiards and Hockey"), so elements in the games are not proper nouns either. To suggest that they are is akin to suggesting that though "the human body" is not a proper noun, its parts, ailments, etc. are ("Knees, Blood and Arthritis"). Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- That is not correct. Look up Queen's Gambit in any reference. It is always capitalized. It's not a question of silliness, it's a question of correctness. I should note that in the past (through the early 20th century) it was common for writers to capitalize the piece names themselves, "Queen" instead of "queen". This is no longer common. The names of opening variations remain capitalized always, and there's no evidence that this will change. Quale 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- You actually point out, unintentionally, why this argument is fallacious. It formerly was very common in English to "Germanize" nouns by capitalizing them just for the heck of it (any review of turn-of-last-century advertising materials will clearly demonstrate this). The somewhat common continued capitalization of things like "Queen's Gambit" in the context of chess is simply a lingering holdover of this otherwise mostly abandoned phenomenon (even abandoned by other sports and games; no one writes "Massé Shot" or "Hole-in-One" any longer), and the fact that chess fans like to continue to do it doesn't make it grammatical at all, any more than it is grammatical to spell "you" as "U" just because millions of Internet gamers like to do that. Chess's horse is not so high that articles about it on Wikipedia can ignore English grammar standards in favor of fannish quirks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. I pointed it out quite intentionally. You need to get off your high horse. Articles in WikiPedia are titled with the names which are most commonly used in English. Chess opening names are not just occasionally capitalized or often capitalized, they are always capitalized. This is absolutely universal. Provide some contrary evidence or go away—you are tedious. Quale 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Found all of the following in about 90 seconds; not exactly "universal", eh? Granted none of these are reference works, but if I turn up this many breakings with 1800s-style tradition, I'd been utterly shocked if at least one reliable book on the topic didn't also use proper modern grammar. That said, I have better things to do that spend hours in a library to prove a point that will probably get shouted down anyway because no one is going to read this other than chess fans who tend to be traditionalists; grammar sticklers are unlikely to notice this discussion and back up my side of the debate. I've said my piece and made my point, and am moving on.
- "Queen's gambit"; interestingly, it does this with all openings other than those that are proper names, such as the Ruy Lopez (see below)
- "Used against the queen's gambit..."
- "An irregular acceptance of the queen's gambit leads to..."
- "Queen's gambit..."
- "Used against the queen's gambit..."
- — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I checked one of the links, namely http://www.johnpratt.com/items/chess/menu.html and found on that page "Two Knights Defense", "Four Knights opening", "Center Game", and "Giuoco Piano", all capitalized as is customary except for the Four Knights opening, which should be Four Knights Game or Four Knights Opening. It's likely that "queen's gambit" on that page is a typo, as is not surprising given that there's no evidence that the page had any professional editing done on it. I suspect the same is true for the other pages you list. Google guesstimates about 440,000 hits for "queen's gambit". Although google hit estimates aren't very accurate, there are a lot of uses of Queen's Gambit on the internet so it isn't surprising to find some typos and some people who aren't familiar with the customary orthography used in English for chess opening names. In addition to all chess references (see chess opening for some examples), even non-chess references use Queen's Gambit. See the 1984 Collier's Encyclopedia for one example. Quale 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. I pointed it out quite intentionally. You need to get off your high horse. Articles in WikiPedia are titled with the names which are most commonly used in English. Chess opening names are not just occasionally capitalized or often capitalized, they are always capitalized. This is absolutely universal. Provide some contrary evidence or go away—you are tedious. Quale 15:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- You actually point out, unintentionally, why this argument is fallacious. It formerly was very common in English to "Germanize" nouns by capitalizing them just for the heck of it (any review of turn-of-last-century advertising materials will clearly demonstrate this). The somewhat common continued capitalization of things like "Queen's Gambit" in the context of chess is simply a lingering holdover of this otherwise mostly abandoned phenomenon (even abandoned by other sports and games; no one writes "Massé Shot" or "Hole-in-One" any longer), and the fact that chess fans like to continue to do it doesn't make it grammatical at all, any more than it is grammatical to spell "you" as "U" just because millions of Internet gamers like to do that. Chess's horse is not so high that articles about it on Wikipedia can ignore English grammar standards in favor of fannish quirks. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I emphatically agree with Quale. What's next -- the Ruy lopez? Krakatoa 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- That really is silly. Lopez, like any other surname, is a proper noun, by definition. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- That is not correct. Look up Queen's Gambit in any reference. It is always capitalized. It's not a question of silliness, it's a question of correctness. I should note that in the past (through the early 20th century) it was common for writers to capitalize the piece names themselves, "Queen" instead of "queen". This is no longer common. The names of opening variations remain capitalized always, and there's no evidence that this will change. Quale 04:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Game names themselves are not proper nouns (e.g. "chess, billiards and hockey", not "Chess, Billiards and Hockey"), so elements in the games are not proper nouns either. To suggest that they are is akin to suggesting that though "the human body" is not a proper noun, its parts, ailments, etc. are ("Knees, Blood and Arthritis"). Let's not be silly. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- All other articles in Category:Chess openings are capitalised, suggesting that they are all treated as proper nouns. --Stemonitis 09:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Quale and Krakatoa. Virtually all chess related literature treats the name of chess openings as proper nouns, and they should therefore be capitalized. OK, if Ruy Lopez was a bad example, then compare it to "New York City", as opposed to "New York city". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
