Talk:Scandinavian Defense
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Harry Potter?
OOH, Ron Weasley plays the Scandinavian. Tell me again why I should care? I mean, was there any DIALOGUE about this opening? Was there any reason to believe it wasn't just a random sequence the directer chose because it "looked cool"? Eleland 20:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Given that Jeremy Silman was involved in the scene as a whole, and created the position used in the final sequence, I say we keep it. Even though it's not clear from the referenced article whether Silman picked the opening, it's completely plausible that he did, as the producers probably wanted something with an immediate capture, for script reasons -- and the Center Counter fits the bill better than any other (sound) opening! If that was an accidental choice, they could hardly have done better.Goldenband 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Marshall Gambit
The Marshall Gambit page was recently split from this page. I don't think that was well advised, and I suggest that they be merged again.
- This page (Scandinavian Defense) was not so long that a split was required for the use of WP:SUMMARY style.
- It is beneficial to have a complete discussion of the opening in one place if possible.
- Most importantly, the name Marshall Gambit is applied to at least three distinct and unrelated openings: Tarrasch Defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4, Semi-Slav Defense: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Bd2, and the line in the Scandinavian. Quale (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I completely concur. In addition to that reasoning, fewer, more comprehensive articles are better than many articles for variations, and help avoid notability issues which endanger the variation forks. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with merging Marshall Attack back as well. The Scandinavian Defense is notable enough for its own article, but it is a secondary opening, and variations of it probably do not. "Marshall Gambit" should be a disambiguation, and probably mention the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez, which is really a gambit as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree too. The new article has already had its notability questioned. It's better off here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree as well, and for what it's worth, I even play the opening (2...Nf6)! Goldenband (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree also. Don't understand the reasoning behind splitting the article up. ChessCreator (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree too. The new article has already had its notability questioned. It's better off here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with merging Marshall Attack back as well. The Scandinavian Defense is notable enough for its own article, but it is a secondary opening, and variations of it probably do not. "Marshall Gambit" should be a disambiguation, and probably mention the Marshall Attack of the Ruy Lopez, which is really a gambit as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Since consensus here appears to be very unanimous, I have gone ahead and merged the content of Marshall Defense back into this article, the Marshall Defense page is now a disambiguation. There are some obscure variations which will need sourcing in the material, and I am not so good with galleries that I can make neat diagrams on the disambig page, so some more help on that score would be nice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that the article's been merged once again, the 2...Nf6 section definitely needs some rewriting. Relatively unimportant variations like the Richter are given a fair bit of space, whereas all of 3. Bb5+ gets only a line or so. Also, there are some parenthetical asides that are a bit unencyclopedic in tone. As an alternative to a full rewrite, if someone wants to review some older revisions of this section and split the difference, I think it'd be a positive step forward. Goldenband (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, while I'm thinking about it, I believe 2...Nf6 is on record as having been played before Frank Marshall was even born, so we may want to modify that language a bit. Goldenband (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
