Talk:Two Knights 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.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

(12-01-06) Nigel Short recently played 8.Qf3 and obtained a good position (1-0); at first sight, black played strong moves but wasn't able to get enough play for the pawn. I think this line deserves more explanations. See the page for more details :

http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1158953544

Contents

[edit] Question

Is there anybody who could create the beginning of the articles on Estrin and the Max Lange Attack ?

--Eric Guez 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question n°2

... and the same for Sveshnikov ?

--Eric Guez 14:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Table of Variations looks fishy

Every single line of the Two Knights ends in equality?! Says who? The idea that 4.Ng5 Bc5!? equalizes is particularly surprising. I thought Anand pretty much refuted it in a game against Beliavsky some years ago that began 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.Bd5! -- although Anand managed to lose. I also doubt the Fritz and Ulvestad lines equalize, and 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 is pretty fishy, although I'm not sure if it's been refuted outright. I doubt whether there's even a consensus among theoreticians that Black equalizes in the main line after 4.Ng5. Krakatoa 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Certainly not. The positional judgements need to be edited. They weren't there before, they are not there now. Feel free to edit appropriately... I have removed the "="s. Just stick your evaluation between the <td></td> tags on the appropriate variation. I also think something is wrong with variation 6 -- not sure what was intended here. It also would be nice if the theory table had the complete main line at the top, with things like the Traxler as variations on it rather than vice versa. ThreeE 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that we must be careful in assessing opening variations since the theory changes constantly. I have tried to tend to fairly vague assessments, but it's hard, since I have read that even the Lolli Attack, generally considered very good for White, is uncertain after a correspondence game a few years ago. I think for current evaluation of opening lines people will always want to go to ECO or other sources, and that wikipedia can better explain the possibilities rather than offer precise evaluations that are likely to be overturned in the future. Certainly we can continually update the articles as the theory changes, but I also think it would be interesting to do a historical look at opening theory. "In 1851 Bilguer's Handbuch said xxxxx, in yyyy the first version of Modern Chess Openings said zzzzz, and in 1999 Nunn's Chess Openings suggested wwwwww." Quale 01:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chess Opening Theory Table

I have a couple of concerns with the tabular presentation of the opening moves.

  1. The tables are an absolute bear to edit.
  2. The tables make it unclear which move is actually characteristic of the variation.

As to issue 2, it is possible in the text to specify which moves characterize the variation, but I think it shows that the theory tables at once give too little information and too much. In Ulvestadt's V. it is well known that 6.Bf1 is the correct reply, but people still do play 6.Bxb5? and that's still part of the variation.

I do like the clean look of the table, but I'm not sure it's the best presentation of the information for the wikipedia audience. If the Ruy Lopez article goes this direction it will need a major overhaul. The current presentation of the Ruy is far from perfect and I expect that it will improve as people have good ideas, but I don't know if a theory table will be the best way to go. Quale 01:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I tend to like the tables versus the listings we see elsewhere. Having said that, I do believe that most of the wikipedia entries for openings are tending towards to much analysis -- some of it original. I actually like this analysis, and the back and forth debate that you see on wikipedia. Since it does tend to be original research, I have created a Chess Opening Theory Wikibook, but I don't think most of the chess wikipedians are too warm for it yet. It is hard to imagine the effort of moving all of the analysis there though -- I'm not sure I would support that. Where appropriate, I have copied it (as time allows) and have tried to move the more detailed analysis there. I'd personally like to see a WCO in the spirit of NCO, ECO, and MCO. Suggestions are welcome... ThreeE 01:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I also agree that the table format takes more effort, but I think once you do it a few times, it's pretty easy. I guess I think the benefits outweigh the costs -- but probably more for intermediate and advanced chess players. ThreeE 01:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Quale has a point. Right now this table just gives main lines (e.g. Bf1! in the Ulvestad and Fritz, 5.Bxf7+! in the Wilkes-Barre). I don't know how, or if, the tables can really give useful guidance to readers. As we all know, NCO/ECO/MCO/BCO would spend several pages of small print on the Two Knights, with 200 or so footnotes. We can't very well do that here. On a more minor point, where do we put equals signs and such, and is there a way to make the symbols for "small advantage White," "large advantage Black," and so forth? Krakatoa 16:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah -- put the evaluations between the td tags -- I took out the ='s that were there earlier. ThreeE 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ulvestad

Two different spellings, "Ulvestad" and "Ulvestadt", appeared in the article. I've changed it to the first throughout, which is the one I've seen elsewhere. If this is not correct please amend 213.249.135.36 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 5.Bxf7+

Can someone tell me (or point me to a source that tells me) why white plays 5.Bxf7+ and not 5.Nxf7 it seems to me that Nxf7 wins black's rookAndrew zot 11:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that after 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+! white is in some danger of getting mated. Not that 5.Nxf7 isn't played, but if theory hasn't changed since I last looked at this (quite possible), black gets enough of an attack to ensure at least a draw by repetition, despite the loss of material.--OinkOink 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I’m sure this is what attracted me to the Italian Game in the first place; in one line (I can’t remember where; Traxler? Jerome?) it had Nxf7, forking Queen and Rook, and the comment said “ White is now doomed, and faces checkmate in x moves” ; it was so counter-intuitive, I was hooked! Moonraker12 09:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
5.Bxf7+ is indeed a very strong move and most likely better then the chaotic Nxf7 ChessCreator 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how white would get mated, 5.Nxf7! forking Queen and Rook then 5...Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Ng4+? 7.Qxg4 Qe7 8.Nxh8! with white in a clear lead. AS Artimour (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
One example. 5....Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7. Kg1 Qh4 8. Nxh8? (8. g3 Nxg3 9. Nxh8 Nd4 10. hxg3 Qxg3+ 10. Kf1 Qf4+ 11. Kg1 Qg3+ 12. Kf1 Qf4+ draw by repetition) Qf2# ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polerio

The article used to say that the Two Knights was "analyzed by Polero in 1580". Now it says it was "first recorded by Polerio in 1580". This may be true, but it should be checked against sources to make sure it's accurate, as the new claim is stronger than the old one. I think I added the original sentence to this article a couple of years ago taking care to base it on one of the sources listed at the bottom of the page. (Unfortunately I didn't use inline cites.) It might require a different source to justify the new claim. I'll look at the sources I have. Quale 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got this from the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games ; I’ve added it as a source. Moonraker12 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to apologize—I do. Sorry, you're right. (Actually I mean I'm glad you're right, I'm sorry I questioned it.) I didn't have any reference materials handy, but looking it up in H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess, page 824 says Polerio was the first to put many openings in print: QGD (Slav Defense), fianchetto defenses, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Nimzowitch's D., Pirc, many variations of the King's Gambit, Center Game, several variations of the Bishop's O. including the Boden-Kieseritzky G., Latvian G., Two Knight's D., and Four Knights Game. Quale 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the source for this, as I've found a better one. Estrin's Two Knights Defence states Polerio first analyzed this in 1560 (!); though again, most of the work on it was done after the 1850's. Moonraker12 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
(Actually, now it looks as if he wrote it when he was 12 years old! Still, thats the date Estrin gives, both in the forward, and in the chapter on the Morphy variation (that's the line Polerio followed). I'm getting a bit lost, now! Moonraker12 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
I think Estrin is mistaken, or it's a typo. (If the book is a translation, that could also be the cause). Our article on Giulio Polerio says he is ascribed some manuscripts from 1580 to 1600. Murray lists a manuscript from around 1574 that may be due to Polerio, but that's the earliest date for any of his writings I've seen. The manuscript that introduced a large number of openings is reported to be from 1594. Quale 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You’re probably right about the Estrin reference, but… it’s a source, what can you do? And I re-checked the OECG reference; my mistake (again!) it was a game by Greco in 1620, not Polerio (and it followed a different line to the one given by Estrin).(This is starting to feel like trying to nail a jelly to the wall!) How about “the late 1500’s”, or “the latter part of the 16th century”, with the same source? Moonraker12 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've gone with that. Moonraker12 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Knights Defence

Wouldn't this article more accurately named defence. Having checked a little the word 'defense' is an Americanism and is given as an 'U.S. spelling' in English dictionaries - have a Collins dictionary in my hand. Also http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?js=off&dictionary=Choose+your+dictionary&text=defence

I've only seen chess books use the term Defence. See cover picture here -> http://www.amazon.com/Knights-Defence-Batsford-Chess-Openings/dp/0713484411 Wikipedia uses the word defence for all countries except the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_minister ChessCreator (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Answering my own old question. Basically no, Wikipedia is in the English variation that the first major contributor choose, in this case American English. ChessCreator (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prussian Game

Can anyone confirm Prussian Game occurs with position 4. Ng5 has being played? [1] [2] [3] [4] plus Preußische Partie and ECO codes from German wiki. ChessCreator (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

'Unzicker, Wolfgang (1975). Knaurs Neues Schachbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene.' (in German) says Prussian is after 3. ...Nf6 this gives conflict with above links. Looking for a reliable source, but it seems Prussian is not given in English books, perhaps solution is not to include it at all. ChessCreator (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Wolfgang Unzicker wrote in his book Knaurs Neues Schachbuch für Anfänger und ::Fortgeschrittene. Droemer Knaur. München/Zürich 1975. ISBN 3-426-02242-7:
Das Zwei-Springer-Spiel im Nachzuge oder die preußische Partie
Diese Eröffnung wird durch folgende Züge bestimmt: 1. e2-e4 e7-e5; 2. Sg1-f3 Sb8-c6; 3. Lf1-c4 ::Sg8-f6. (page 57)
(...)
1. Der Angriff auf f7
4.Sf3-g5 (page 58)
(...)
2. Der Vorstoß d2-d4
Nach den Zügen 1. e2-e4 e7-e5; 2. Sg1-f3 Sb8-c6; 3. Lf1-c4 Sg8-f6 kann Weiß auch 4. d2-d4 ziehen. (page 60)
Best wishes, Mibelz (talk), 17:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
The Two Knights Defense came to be designated the Prussian game, named after Bilguer's opening monography from 1839, see here - this was indeed the test run for the famous handbook's methodology (variation analysis, notation etc). However, the traditional naming "Two Knights Defense" prevailed in the end. With the ECO code, as the German wiki article explains, the "Prussian Game" got to be exclusively reserved for the Ng5 variation - which is, for history's sake, a good solution, because von Bilguer dealt only with Ng5, with a special focus on the Fried Liver Attack. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)