Talk:St. George Defence
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Spelling[edit]
I don't normally care too much about British v American spellings, especially when a redirect is set up to make them both work, but I can't help thinking this subject should be spelt 'St. George Defence', given that it got its name from the patron saint of England after an English player got a notable victory with it. Anyone got any strong objections to it being moved? CTOAGN 17:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Consistency with other opening articles. 213.249.135.36 17:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, there's no such consistency (see Category talk:Chess openings#Defense vs. Defence). Most of the more common defences are at Defence, while many others are at Defense. CTOAGN's argument is a valid one, although I don't know if it warrants moving the article. -- Jao 14:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I too prefer 'defence' to 'defense' but let us not split hairs good people. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 19:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- This one is defence as the whole topic is about English items. ChessCreator (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Coinage[edit]
The article currently implies that the name was first used by Miles and also that it was first used by Basman. I'm assuming they spoke to each other regularly, so there may be some truth to both statements, but they sound contradictory. Can someone shed light on this? -- Jao (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basman played the opening many times before Miles but it was only Miles's defeat of Karpow with it that put it on the map. Basman never made GM and was only an IM. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 18:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Given that at this time we have no sources for any of these claims, I've removed the contradictory information and the template until the issue can be conclusively resolved. Chromancer (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Main line in crisis?[edit]
The main line of St. George Defence seems to be almost unplayable since a theoretical novelty at move 6 was introduced in the following Internet game:
[Event "Aljubarrota Vs Castela ~ from sam_barroqueiro"] [Site "http://gameknot.com/"] [Date "2019.10.10"] [Round "-"] [White "dr_siggy"] [Black "sam_barroqueiro"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2300"] [BlackElo "2134"]
1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5 3. Nf3 Bb7 4. Bd3 d6 5. O-O Nf6 6. e5 [!?] dxe5 7. dxe5 Ne4 8. e6 [!] f5 9. Bxe4 fxe4 10. Qxd8+ Kxd8 11. Ng5 Kc8 12. Nf7 Rg8 13. Rd1 Nc6 14. Nc3 Kb8 15. Nxe4 Nb4 16. Rd8+ Bc8 17. c3 Nc6 18. Re8 Kb7 1-0 81.193.184.192 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)