Talk:Italian Game

Original Talk

Same as Giuoco Piano

The Oxford Companion, MCO, and most other references equate the Italian game with the Giuoco Piano (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5), not stopping after 3. Bc4, i.e. not including the Two Knights. Bubba73 (talk), 04:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This comment pre-dates a merge with Giuoco Piano, the discussion below,and a re-write as Italian Game). Moonraker12 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

On the other hand, Understanding the Chess Openings by Sam Colins (2005) treats it as this article does now (1/2008) - 3. Bc4. Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Encyclopedia of Chess Openings lists "Italian" but not GP or Two Knights, implying that Italian encompases both of them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Italian game

The comments below ("New Page","Name",Content?") belong with the article now on this page, so I've copied it to here. Moonraker12 12:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

I'm aware that the terms Italian Game and Giuoco Piano are often used interchangeably, and that these pages have been merged and un-merged a couple of times (see latest discussion here).
I’ve re-opened this page mainly to conform to the distinction made on other WP pages and in Wikibooks between play after 3.Bc4 and 3…Bc5, and also to give a seamless link to the pages on the Two Knights and the Hungarian Defences,as well as the Giuoco Piano. Moonraker12 08:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name

On the issue of the name (see discussion), the sources here are no more definite.
Bronsteins 200 Open Games refers to the Italian (G.P), but then in the first game described gives 3…N-QB3 , which is the 2 Knights!
On the other hand, Zagorovsky’s Romantic Chess Openings has separate chapters for the Hungarian, Italian (3.Bc4 Bc5), Evans and 2 Knights (4d4 and 4Ng5).
BCO’s chapter on this has sections for Evans, G.P II and 2 Knights; however the first section, laying out 3…d6, 3..Be7 and 3…Bc5 is entitled G.P I, but with a particular line, 4.d3, entitled Giuoco Piano.
My own thought, for what it’s worth, is that historically ( say, in Greco’s time) the Italian Game was all play after 3.Bc4, perhaps to distinguish it from the Spanish game, and the Giuoco Piano was one of the (presumably quiet) lines in that.
Nowadays the Hungarian and the Two Knights have a life of their own , and the G.P has expanded (and the Italian diminished) to cover whatever is left. But I don't have any evidence to substantiate that. Moonraker12 11:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content?

I’m also not sure how much play should, or can, be included in an encyclopaedia entry. Should we just be giving an overview, and referring , or linking, to other , much more complete sources, like ECO? And can we include big chunks of detail on various lines derived from those sources and stay within copyright? Moonraker12 12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User Talkpage

Also, the comments ("Italian Game") from my talk page also refer to this article, so I've copied them here as well. Moonraker12 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Game

I have some concerns about some of your edits to Italian Game-related pages such as Hungarian Defense and Evans Gambit. I know they are well-intentioned, but often they don't seem sufficiently precise. Your edit to Hungarian D. said that it is "often chosen in tournament play", but my impression is that it is actually rather rare in tournament play. If I'm mistaken we should probably find a source. (It may be that I'm mistaken because the G.P. itself is pretty rare, so maybe the Hungarian is chosen often by black players who don't want to be suprised by a Kasparov Evans Gambit or the like.) The Evans Gambit edit said "a development of the Giuoco Piano (Italian Game) intende to restore open/tactical play into lines after 3...Bc5 which tended towards the positional" which I also think isn't accurate. Modern G.P. play tends toward positional play, but when Captain Evans introduced the :gambit in 1827 the concept of positional play hardly existed at all. I think the idea behind this may be OK, but the wording needs to be more careful. Quale 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, I’ve not made things clear (Time pressure?)

Hungarian: Yes, it is rare; I was meaning “often” only after 3.Bc4, which is itself rare. (having said that, the comment is still only valid if HD is the most common response to 3.Bc4, and I’m not even sure of that, now.)

But it is my impression that (first) this is why people play the HD; I don’t know if anyone sets out to play it, and (second) that it is part of the reason why 3.Bc4 is rare; A draw is better than the risk of a loss in tournament, and the HD seems a real deterrent to the sort of players who enjoy open play.

Evans : Again, yes; the idea of positional play is anachronistic. But I believe it was seen as a way of opening up a line that had become really stodgy, which is what I was trying to convey; wasn’t it described as “a breath of fresh air into a tired world”, or something like that?

GP : I think the confusion over the name is a product of history, and I do think that GP and IG are not entirely synonymous, though nowadays it seems to come to the same thing; but I can't think of an easy way to say that, so it's probably best left.

Polerio: I’ve replied here, but again, my mistake; the source of the comment is on the IG page.

If you are OK with the ideas behind what I said, I’ll have another swing at it. My overall aim anyway with these edits was to provide unifying links forward and back in these pages; does that seem OK? Moonraker12 08:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts on these pages, and your goal to provide reciprocal links between these related pages is a good idea. If your impression of the reason for the introduction of the Evans Gambit is correct, you should look for a reference to support it. I'm really leery of trying to get inside Captain Evans head and ascribing a motive for his invention unless there's a reliable source to back it up. Personally, I suspect that the G.P. was not considered stodgy in 1827. After all, the famous Steinitz–von Bardeleben game was played almost 70 years later. I have Tim Harding's book on the Evans and it's chock full of historical info, so I can dig it out to see what he writes about it. It's certainly possible that you're every bit as right about this as you were about Polerio and the Two Knights. On a smaller matter, I think you should put the Italian Game material under that capitalization rather at "Italian game". Opening names are typically capitalized in English. If you browse Category:Chess openings you'll see that Italian game stands out. If you do that, you can add the page to List of chess topics. A number of WP:CHESS members use the "Related changes" feature on that page to watch updates to chess articles. Also, the Italian Game page should mention that the name is often used as a synonym for the G.P. It isn't clear what the most common usage in English is, but my general impression is that it is more common to consider it the same as the G.P. than as a complex of openings after 3.Bc4 as in the description given on the Italian Game page. For instance, The Oxford Companion to Chess has Italian Opening and G.P. as synonyms. Quale 09:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; and I can see your point about trying to second-guess people from the past. You mentioned Tim Harding's book; you don't have access to his 1977 book, with George Botterill, do you? It was in our library, but someone's walked off with it, and I don't know if it's even still in print (I couldn't find it on Waterstone's). I've got notes from it, and some photocopies, but that's all. On the subject of capitalization; yes, I agree; I didn't realize till I'd finished that I'd opened up the wrong re-direct page, and when I tried to move it, it wouldn't move. I could cut-and-paste everything, but I gather that's not such a good idea. Do you know of any legitimate way to move it? Moonraker12 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've had another stab at HD and IG, and replied on 2N. Moonraker12 10:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A final note: on Talk:Italian game you wrote that you realize that Italian Game is frequently used as a synonym for the G.P., yet you didn't put that anywhere on the Italian Game page you resurected. Are you going to fix that? There's evidence suggesting that the synonymous usage may be the most common in English, but it isn't reflected in the article. Quale 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I thought I already had, in the opening paragraph: I put "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3…B.c5." which mirrors the comment I found on the GP page. I know that nowadays (though I don't know how widespread it is) they are used synonymously, but I'm also conscious that they are not (or were not) the same thing (3.Bc4 certainly isn't "Quiet"!), and I wanted to reflect that. Moonraker12 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another issue, I notice that the stuff on Italian game (one cap) is now on Italian Game (both caps) which I certainly think is better (I know we discussed this earlier); OTOH the Talk pages and Revision Histories don’t match now; is there any way of fixing that? I've posted this on Walter Chan's page also, as he did the move. Moonraker12 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's nothing we can do with the revision history, but the talk page could be redirected to and the content on it reposted on the Italian Game talk page. youngvalter 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; done. Moonraker12 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision History

To clarify the Revision History:-
All History on this page prior to 27 May 2007 refers to the original page;
From 27 May 2007 to 11 October it was merged with Guioco Piano;
History for this page between 11 October and 21 October 20007 is still at Italian game;
All History after 21 October 2007 refers to this page.
Moonraker12 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name

Why is the opening this article is about called "Italian Game"? By now, I've seen the name

"Polerio's game" ("Spiel des Polerio" in German).

But according to chesscorner.com

"The Giuoco Piano is named after an Italian chess player called Gioachino Greco who lived in the 17th century."

But chesscorner.com doesn't explain who invented the name, nor do they give a source for this claim.

--Schwalker (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]