Talk:Chess opening

What about 1... c5 ?

Very nice article indeed, only was I surprised to see no coverage of the black response 1...c5. Is there a specific reason other than no editor has worked it so far? --Childhood's End (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 1. e4 c5 is poorly covered in this article, would recommend you see Sicilian Defence and it's subpages. If you are willing, add a ...c5 section yourself. ChessCreator (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The level of coverage of the Sicilian in the article currently is perfectly appropriate for this survey. If the coverage of the Sicilian were expanded here, then so should be the coverage of every other popular opening. That would be out of place here. Quale (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC) On second thought, I should temper that a little. The Sicilian is popular enough that it could get about 2 to 3 more sentences in this article, but no single opening deserves more than that here. Quale (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For 1.e4 e5, a section exists, 'Open_games (1.e4 e5)' with 6 diagrams with resulting openings explained and listed. 1.e4 c5 has one diagram with little explanation and no resulting opening. In modern chess and for many years, 1. e4 c5 has been the most common reply to 1.e4. However I would agree that's not been reflected in literature as 1.e4 e5 has quite a historical significant, and knowing that most people interested in the Sicilian would be for modern purposes it is perhaps best they are lead into the Sicilian Defence article anyway. ChessCreator (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges a bit here, but you're right that this is due to historical reasons. 1.e4 e5 is not a single opening so it is not comparable to 1.e4 c5. 1.e4 e5 gets a whole section because that's the way that openings are broken down in opening books (Open Games vs. Semi-Open Games). The Sicilian is just one of several popular Semi-Open Games, and the Semi-Open Games together get a section just as the Open Games together get a section. Also the resulting "openings" after 1.e4 c5 are variations, while the resulting openings after 1.e4 e5 are in fact still considered separate openings, not variations of the double king's pawn opening. (Unfair? Maybe, but that's the way it is. Everything after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 could and probably should be considered variations of a single opening, but that isn't how the nomenclature developed. This effect is particularly pronounced in the Queen's pawn openings, where mere "variations" are often more important than most king's pawn "openings".) The Sicilian as a whole is then comparable to the individual Open Games (Sicilian to Scotch Game or Sicilian to Ruy Lopez), not to all the open games combined. In that comparison the Sicilian could deserve slightly more coverage here than say the Scotch, but remember that because no individual opening should be given more than two or three sentences here, there isn't going to be much differentiation. We have several levels of articles on the openings, so we only include the very most important openings in this top level survey, including of course those most popular (today and in the past) and a few others for didactic purposes. (If amount of coverage were based strictly on importance, the irregular openings wouldn't get mentioned here at all, and that wouldn't work.) The Open Game, Semi-Open Game, Closed Game, Semi-Closed Game, Indian Defence, and Irregular opening second level survey articles can include more detail. (Some of these articles could use improvement.) The greatest amount of detail should be in the individual article on the opening, and possibly sub-articles on specific variations for the most popular or important openings. This is an application of summary style. If you want to see what the article looks like when individual openings get sections rather than organizing with high level divisions we use now, look at the page on 11 March 2005. We improved the article a lot in the three weeks following. Quale (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article's biggest problem is that it goes into far too much detail about particular opeinigs and families of openings.

I'd keep the useful list of opening terminology, and promote "Anti-" to a sub-heading on the samelevel as the rest of the terms.

I'll edit "Classification of chess openings" to repeat the x-link to List of chess openings.

I'd be happy to see the material about open, semi-open and closed games moved (or even removed). Besides being too detailed, it's misleading as there are open, semi-open and closed variations in many openings. For example: French Defense is usually fairly closed but the Rubinstein Variation is at least semi-open and and so is one wild line in the usually very closed Winawer variation; the Nimzo-Indian varies from closed (Samisch variation) to at least semi-open; and the Closed Morphy Defence to the Ruy Lopez is usually very closed despite starting with 1. e4; e5.

OTOH the article should say say something about transpositions and how they can open up a very wide range of choices and can be used to lure an opponent into unfamiliar or uncomfortable territory (see e.g. Transpo Tricks in Chess. This should perhaps go into "Aims of the opening". Philcha (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC.

Would be nice to know why White does not play gxf in the perenyi Attack

Fixed lede

Language in lede referred to "this article" which is not recommended, so i struck it and did a tiny rewrite. i mention it here as this is an otherwise extremely mature and well written article, and i am not a regular contrib. if my phrasing is still not on point, please correct me, but i know that the striking of that specific language is necessary.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted First Paragraph

I took the liberty of deleting the first paragraph of this article because it was not a good definition of 'Chess Opening' and dwelt on rather trivial semantics.

Sure a chess opening can refer to either a stage of the game or a series of moves. The key is that it is the initial series of moves but this was not stated until the second paragraph. That the term can also refer to the stage of the game that encompasses those moves is a rather trivial point. The fact that people use the synonym interchangeably in common speech is also trivial - since this is a general phenomenon for most synonyms. For example, few people would have trouble understanding the sentence, "The blonde was happy she had blonde hair", where 'blonde' refers to either a person or a hair color.

Its better to get straight to the point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfero (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It also seemed sort of redundant with the second paragraph to me. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

A small request from a reader

While WP:NOT 'Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual' is of course relevant to my inquiry, and I don't ask that the article be turned into an instruction manual, I do find the article a bit daunting and not quite as helpful as it could be with a sentence or two of guidance regarding the relative "importance" of various openings.

To set the context, I suspect I am like many readers of this article: I know how to play chess (since I was a child) but I know little of chess theory. My daughter has become interested in chess, and I thought we might together become more literate in the subject by learning 3-5 of the most "famous" or "important" openings that a young player should learn. But this article mentions by name a few dozen openings, and I can't quite make out which ones are the ones I ought to study first.

To keep it encyclopedic, the sort of sentence I'm looking for would be something like an addition just after this line: "Professional chess players spend years studying openings, and continue doing so throughout their careers, as opening theory continues to evolve." We might continue at that point to say something like "Kasparov's famous educational text for beginners, Chess for people who aren't nearly as smart as I am, which means all of you suggests that the study of X, Y, and Z opening provides a solid start." (Obviously I'm joking respectfully about that title, as I don't even know what textbook would be considered helpful. :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be able to list (in a sourced way) about five of the most common openings, as far as frequency played or at least coverage in the literature. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I think that the chess articles (mainly handled by the chess project) have a lot of good material. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The request to identify the "most important" openings is a bit tricky, because there are so many openings which are important and which a player can choose from. In fact, almost all the openings which have a bullet listing in the article are major openings, played frequently in games between grandmasters and amateurs alike. The only bulleted openings which I would call "rare" are Center Game, Danish Gambit, Stonewall Attack, and the Sokolsky Opening.

I have added a section on opening repertoires, because most players put some thought into that matter. I have cited Chess for Tigers concerning the three main categories of opening (White opening, Black vs. 1.e4, and Black vs. 1.d4), but I have seen that classification elsewhere as well. Which openings you pick to fill each "slot" is largely a matter of taste. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, a problem with your initial request is that the most famous/important openings are not recommended for players to study first. For example, currently, the Sicilian and several Indian defences are very popular at high level, but they are definitely not what a young player should study first, according to most instructional books. This is because they don't work according to « principles » that can be easily explained, but are more like a very large body of particular cases.

Another problem is that many beginners (or « false beginners ») think that they should study openings first because they are related to the beginning of the game. In reality, most instructional books say just a few words about them, and quickly jump to endgames and tactics, simply because beginners will benefit much more from these in their first lessons: endgames because it teaches how to handle each piece and the most common combinations of them, tactics because they basically decide the game at « rank and file » levels. This is also because teaching an opening to someone who does not know basic tactics is next to useless, the student simply doesn't understand what he is being told.

Therefore, in my opinion, suggesting to learn openings only from scratch would be a mistake. The best way to handle this would be to suggest a few good books for beginners that cover not only openings, but the whole game, with a section on openings. Books that focus on openings are obviously also relevant in the article, but, in my opinion, only for players who already know the basics covered in the general books. Oyp (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked four elementary books and none of them had a short list of recommended openings for beginners. In fact, A World Champion's Guide to Chess by Susan Polgar doesn't say anything about openings!

You are right in that many of the most popular openings are not good choices for beginners. I've heard that the Soviet/Russian School teaches fundamentals first (Chess tactics, chess strategy, chess endgame) and gets to openings when they are about 18. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article needs a section on "goals of the opening": control of the center (usually with early pawn moves), development of pieces, king safety (castling), etc. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See Chess_opening#Common_aims_in_opening_play SunCreator (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it is already there! So a beginner would probably be better advised to follow those general principles rather than get into specifics. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all, this was really helpful and enlightening. I will abandon my original concept of studying openings, and will instead go and buy Susan Polgar's book. Seriously, this is great information. I wonder (and the answer might be no) if the section that says that great chess players spend a lot of time studying openings might in some sourced way indicate that this is a more "advanced" topic and not where beginners should begin. If not, that's no big deal, but at least one reader (me!) read the article and thought I had best start learning dozens of openings, when in fact I've not mastered (nor taught my daughter anything about) the fundamentals. I was wrong to think that, and I wonder whether and if so, how, Wikipedia might be made more useful to newbies, without becoming an instructional manual. I leave it in your more than capable hands, as I am not knowledgeable enough to answer my own musings. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have Susan Polgar's book, but I'm not sure it is the best one. It does cover fundamentals but then a large part of the book are positions where the person is to find a checkmate. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have used Lars Bo Hansen's book How Chess Games are Won and Lost which covers the different phases in a chess game plus the transitions between opening, middlegame, and endgame, and he does have a note about amateur players spending too much of their chess studies on the opening phase, this is now in the article. Another quote which I think I might add is that it is preferable to be slightly worse out of the opening but comfortable with your position, than slightly better without any clue as to how to proceed. Simon Webb made similar points in the Chess for Tigers chapter "Looking in the Mirror". (Hansen's book contains many fine observations, but it is not really for beginners, Webb's is probably easier to digest although that is not a beginner's book either.) With that said, most opening books today are not all that bad because they usually contain verbal descriptions and examples of the typical plans each of the players can pursue in the middlegame. On the other hand, the five books making up Encyclopedia of Chess Openings are far too advanced for most players to use as anything else than reference material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that about being in a slightly worse position that you like. In correspondence chess I used to haul out the ECO and blindly pick the line that led to the best evaluation for me. Sometimes I would get to a position I didn't like at all. As far as learning specific openings, I didn't start that until a few months before my first tournament. So you can play quite a while on just general principles. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert War

Let's head off a revert war. I made much needed changes. User:Quale reverted completely to some rather poor text full of misleading mumbojumbo. I put my edits back, as the original text is poor and inaccurate. If they are flawed, please point out the flaw and we will edit the flaws out together. The page is much improved as I have left it. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

1) "rather poor text full of misleading mumbojumbo" / IMO your rewrite is simply outrageous because it is confusing and unnecessarly abstract, packed with unnecessary math and other technical jargon and POV totally inappropriate to the article. 2) "the original text is poor and inaccurate" / I agree with Quale the original text needs improvement, but your rewrite is not improvement – it introduces worse problems and is dis-improvement. (Plus several statements in it are inaccurate or incorrect themselves, so more objectivity is desirable; boasting isn't warranted.) 3) "the page is much improved as I have left it" / Improved for whom? Perhaps your idea of audience for this article needs to be re-reviewed.

The logical and appropriate thing is to follow Quale's suggestion to work out changes here. Your insistence to work backwards from full install isn't logical or appropriate in light of the above. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I some time to edit but no time for internet wars with people who live for that sort of thing. Have fun with the chess pages, see you later. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacques also made similar changes to chess and chess endgame. I haven't examined them, but someone needs to. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can look at Mr. Attitude's adds/edits, to see what contributions have value for inclusion (I'm sure there are some probably), but include in a more reasonable way (i.e. not his writing style). Can editors suggest which add/edit point(s) are worth retaining? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. It's interesting how he declared "war" thru his section title choice, after one polite revert by Quale, then clearly was "taking no prisoners" in followup comments!

I just went through a battle at rules of chess about 2 weeks ago, so I'm not anxious for another one. There were so many changes to chess ending that I haven't felt like evaluating them. I saw that they were obviously not vandalism and they were clearly not contrary to facts like the recent edits to rules of chess, but I don't feel like tackling chess ending right now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand you (even I don't have the same "flight hours" you have). It's wearing. Christ! (I took one glance at Chess endgame and first glimpse caught this: "... combinatorially complex for exhaustive computation by present-day machines and remains dependent on heuristics" ... so of course thought immediately, "that's gotta be Mr. Attitude".) Ok, as time permits... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"... have not led to sudden checkmate and the cumulative effect of irreversible piece capture (unlike chess's Japanese cognate shogi in which pieces return) has resulted in a reduced number of pieces remaining on the board ..." da-da-daa-da-daa ... (I think that's called simplification or transition, duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We oughta change every chess article 'x' to start off saying: "'x' is a non-rigorous term referring to ...". How 'bout it!? (Kidding!) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Yow. I wanted to be nice about this, but frankly your edits to this article weren't very good. I thought your edits to chess were better. Quale (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Quale, can you give your opinion on his edits to chess endgame? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The edits to chess endgame were also poor, and exhibited the same problems seen in this article. I reverted them. Quale (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think edits to chess endgame are excellent (better then on Chess openings for sure). I've reverted. Be precise about what you percieve to be the problem looks like you are getting personal with this editor. Stay calming. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Jaxdelaguerre really understands the subject and the edits are well intended but also it's way to flowery with redundancy that can be cut and requires copy-editing afterwards. But, no big deal. It's nice to have fresh input. There is always WP:BRD, stay cool! Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We should take this over to chess endgame. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved most of the endgame stuff over to that article. Jaxdelaguerre replied over there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Beginners' opening principles

Hmm ... can't seem to find a WP list of beginner's opening principles. I see "aims of the opening" section in this article, but that's different. Beginners' principles exist in the literature, shouldn't they be accumulated in a WP list somewhere, w/ brief definition? (Maybe a section in this article? I'm thinking entries like: "Don't move a piece twice in the opening", "Don't develop the Queen prematurely", "In the opening move only the center pawns", "[Develop] knights before bishops", etc.) If a list already exists somewhere and I've overlooked it, sorry, plz let me know, thx! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)