Talk:Sicilian Defence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Defence vs Defense[edit]

I don't really understand why the article would use "defense". The edit summary saying that a bit sourced from Emms requires British spelling was a flawed rationale for a correct change. Normally article spelling is made internally consistent (with the exception of quotes). In this case the spelling should match the article title. See WP:ENGVAR. Quale (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

When I added the sentence I typed "defense". When I restored it, I changed it to "defence", which is how the article title is. Bubba73 (talk), 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize; I had misinterpreted the edits. I should instead have said that I don't understand why someone would remove a cited sentence relevant to the article over a spelling dispute instead of fixing the spelling. Maybe you didn't either, because you restored the sentence and made the fix. Quale (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Editing on an iPhone, can't scroll to edit inline large text section, so could NOT edit the spelling. SunCreator (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
In chess articles on Wikipedia, I've noticed that 'defence' and 'defense' are used in almost haphazard fashion, both in titles and the articles themselves. I'm American, though I was raised on British English (as may be seen in my edits), so half the time, I don't know what to make of it! Hushpuckena (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's primarily a matter of who started the article. If an American, "defense" will likely be used, if a Brit, "defence". (If the opening or its originator has a nationality, e.g. English Defence, Owen's Defence, Fischer Defense, that should take precedence.) Subsequent edits are supposed to use American English or British English as the original version did, but sometimes people overlook this, so you get "defense" and "defence" in the same article. Krakatoa (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5...Qc7[edit]

Quote "The Singaporean Daniel Fernandez, hitherto unknown in any major way, came up with the strange 5...Qc7!? which usually transposes to an offbeat opening known as the Dragondorf. It can also lead to Rauzer-like structures." Removed this as seems to be WP:OR. Suspect though that 5...Qc7 has some merit as a transpositional move.

What, no mention of my favorite Anti-Sicilian 2.e5?[edit]

Anyone else think 2.e5 is worth mentioning? It stops Black from playing e5 or Nf6. White can protect the e5 pawn with f4 and trade the e5 pawn off when Black pushes the d or f pawn. I'm kind of shocked that there are 10+ moves that beat out my favorite 2.e5! for a mention in the article. Synesthetic (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I see in the various online databses that 2.e5 has been played a few times, albeit with rather poor results for White. However, in order to write about something, the WP:V and WP:NOR policies require us to reliably source the material, and so far I haven't seen anything which does that. The only book I have on Anti-Sicilians is Palliser's Fighting the Anti-Sicilians and that book doesn't cover 2.e5 at all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any references for 2.e5. Houdini gives Black a slight +.20 edge after the move is played but the material remains even in the lines I'm seeing. I'm liking 2.Qh5 more now. After 2...Nf6 3.Qxc5 Nxe4, White can play 4.Qe3. Synesthetic (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ray Charles Gordon variation[edit]

I agree with SunCreator's edit here where the paragraph about at accelerated Maroczy Bind with 3.c4 is marked as dubious. The book which is referenced in the paragraph appears to be self-published and the author, Ray Charles Gordon, does not have any credentials. The claims of "For four years, Ray was an aspiring World Chess Champion" are totally without merit, and Mr. Gordon does not appear to have been a master, let alone a grandmaster or a serious contender for the World Championship, or any other championship for that matter. From looking at the Amazon sales page, the one reviewer seems to agree with that assessment.

Also, looking at the claim, that Black must more or less play 3...e5 as a response, then I am more inclined to believe the top grandmasters. Let's look at who has not read this book, and blunders away with 3...g6?? instead of 3...e5!: (games list with 3...g6) Hmm... It appears that the likes of Anand, Ivanchuk, Andersson, Hort, and Reshevsky have happily played 3...g6 instead of 3...e5 in this position.

The entire paragraph is based on a source which is unreliable and I believe it should be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I removed it. Quale (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not listed[edit]

MaxBrowne, I've already commented on this kind of objection ("isn't listed in WP:WTA"). The "Puffery" section of that page speaks of "Words such as these". The lists there aren't meant to be comprehensive, and it's common sense that "humorous" falls into the same category as the words "fortunately" and "happily" (which are listed on that page). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It is also "common sense" that the name "Toilet Variation" was given with humorous intent, and the humorous wording in the source supports this. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I read the text as "this name is funny", rather than as "this name was given with humorous intent". Is there some way to reword it to make this clearer? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:3O requested. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Upon first reading I parsed the sentence the same way Toccata quarta did. Frankly, I think the humour is self-evident (or indeed, "common sense"), so adding the word to the sentence doesn't really add new information. (Omit needless words.) It would be more useful, for example, to note *who* came up with the idea while sitting on the toilet (I believe it was Mark Hebden). Also, the link to Silman's site is dead, and Silman is far from the best authority to cite regarding the strength of Tal's Gambit in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
yeah i read that it was Hebden (in a Gary Lane book I think but I don't have it to cite). The Silman link can be resurrected from the wayback machine if required but maybe there's a better source out there. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reinstated the WP:3O request because to me this issue is still unresolved. There is also the broader issue of the interpretation of the words to watch guideline. In my opinion some editors have adopted a far too strict interpretation of it. Another example (different editor) was the removal of the word "popular" from the Chess.com article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I came here to try to give a third opinion, but I can't do that because there are already more than two editors involved. However, rather than just leave you to it, I thought I'd make a suggestion, which please feel free to ignore if you like: there isn't really any dispute here, it's just a question of detail of wording. That's easily discussed, but hasn't been. As a starting point, I propose "White may decline the gambit with 3.Nc3, the "Toilet Variation", named for where it was first thought of"; I'm sure someone will improve on that, and it shouldn't be too hard to find something you can all live with. Perhaps. Good luck, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. (I also interpreted the original text same way Toccata and Cobblet did. Toccata's Is there some way to reword it to make this clearer? was in good faith and to the point and was undeserving of the hostile editsum i try to improve this page, you just quibble over wordings. I agree w/ the consensus here that the article s/n tell readers in WP's voice what is humorous and what is not -- they can decided that for themselves. I agree there's no issue here except copyediting to ensure not WP's voice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
There you go poking that dead horse again. Are you still going to maintain that this was not a personal attack? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify my earlier opinion: to me the insertion of the words "humorously named" is not an issue of MoS guidelines, but proper formal writing. The sentence conveys the same information without those words, and does so in a more neutral manner. Those words may not be something MOS:WTW explicitly addresses, but I think the point Toccata was trying to make was valid. I have brought up other points concerning the surrounding paragraph just to point out that there are more pressing issues of factual accuracy to address in the article than this relatively minor stylistic concern. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)