Talk:Damiano Defence

Question

this artical shows that 4. Qh5 is fatal if black responds with 4. ... Ke7. but what if black responds (as it can be assumed he would) with 4. ... g6? i think black will lose his queen in this case, but it will not lead to mate. --Whiteknight 15:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

4...g6 just loses the rook to 5.Qxe5 followed by 6.Qxh8. Black doesn't get mated, true, but the article doesn't claim mate is inevitable. --Camembert 18:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Stub?

Although this article is currently tagged as a stub, I don't think much expansion is possible. There just isn't that much to say about the Damiano. I'm leaving the stub notice for now, but if anyone else agrees that substantial expansion is unlikely, I would support removing the tag. Quale 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

IP 68.167.65.99 post

Paradoxically, f6? actually strengthens the kingside and pawn chain, but its problem is that it exposes the king.

A mistake

"10.Qa5!, when Black's best is 10...Nc6 11.Bxb7 Rb8, when White can play 12.Qxa7, with five extra pawns, or continue developing his pieces, remaining four pawns up -- in either case with a clearly winning position."

I don't think it is 10...Nc6 11.Bxb7 Rb8. It is more likely to be 10...Nc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8.

And another thing, if Black plays g6 as a defense against the White Queen (and lose his rook), Black can actually lock the queen and castle queen-side, eventually capturing White's queen. The stub does not mention it.

Of course it is longer than a stub, but this is excellent, let us not shorten it.

Yosef Cohen. Israel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.169.142 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I assume you are thinking of 5...Qe7 6. Qxh8 Nf6 (anything else by Black and the Queen easily escapes). The queen then has no moves, but Black cannot easily attack her, and White should always be able to break the queen free by attacking or exchanging the pieces that are holding her. For example, 7. d3 ~ 8. Bh6 ~ 9. Bxf8 Qxf8 10. Qxf8+ Kxf8 91.105.62.18 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual MISTAKE in the text is that it gives an illegal move where it says "and now 12. Bxd7 Qxd7 13.Qxa7". There is nothing on 'd7' for the bishop to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.148.64 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just removed that part of the line. Wareh (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sample Chess Game

What happened to this article? It had a good Damiano Defense example. If it can't be on wikipedia it should be somewhere.70.42.116.9 19:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It was transwikified to Wikibooks. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of Sam Sloan

Why is it relevant that Sam Sloan has played it? He's hardly a high class player. StaticElectric 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think you're right about this. It probably gives undue weight to Sloan. I suspect that the information is verifiable, but I'm not sure I think it's encyclopedic. Quale 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'd agree with this, he's not an expert level player, and that he plays an easily refutable line seems to be of no interest. 82.45.40.4 (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed some of the Sloane text. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I like that: "Sloan plays into the main line (3...fxe5?), hoping that White does not know the line . . . " I suppose that we've all tried strategy like that at one time or another, but it's hardly advice worth repeating! WHPratt (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you guys. A former USCF expert's (my CURRENT strength, incidentally) views on the opening are non-notable. That he "hopes" for a blunder also doesn't carry much weight; it's irrelevant and not original analysis. Him playing it is also mentioned before Chigorin (an all-time legend) employing the opening against another top 50 master of his day, Emanuel Schiffers, at a major international tournament. Deleted it. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Importance Scale

Why has this page been given a mid-important on the importance scale? In my view this page should be low, it's less important then others on low-importance, i.e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mieses_Opening and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sokolsky_Opening ChessCreator (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it is of moderate importance, as a beginning chess player might be tempted to consider playing it, thinking it just a passive defense like the Philidor. When your second move can ruin your game, that's pretty serious. WHPratt (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mate in 11

Taking the knight with 3...fxe5 exposes Black to a deadly attack after 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (4...g6 loses to 5.Qxe5+, forking king and rook) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5! (6...Kg6?? 7. Qf5+ is mate in 11)

My analysis is 7... Kh6 8. d3+ g5 9. h4 d5 10. Qf7 any 11. hxg5++#. Mate on the 11th move from the start of the game, not "mate in 11" which in chess parlance always means mate from the 11th move counting the one being played now as the first. Am I right? 91.105.17.163 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "mate in 11" means 11 moves from the current position, not the starting position. But there is a problem with WP:OR if you use your analysis. Bubba73 (talk), 22:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, since I'm not putting my analysis on the page, just using it to justify correction of a false statement presented as fact. I'm going ahead and making the correction. 91.107.147.15 (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The "pseudo-Damiano"

An opening I've seen a few times played by low-rated players is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f6 4. dxe5 fxe5. Does the Nxe5 gambit work in this position as well? 2.25.116.102 (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really because the black king can escape to d7 after 5.N:e5 f:e5 6.Q:e5+. A better response is 5.Bc4. Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)