Talk:Saragossa Opening

1.c3 e5 2.d4

I don't think this can really be added to the article, as it would count as original research. But what I don't understand is the way that after 1.c3 e5 2.d4, no sources consider any reply other than 2...exd4, which strikes me as being somewhat obliging, letting White recapture with the pawn or play an improved Scandinavian with colours reversed. Why not 2...e4, or even 2...Nc6? Yes they may not necessarily equalise, but I doubt that 2...exd4 does either. Tws45, 15:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sources probably only consider 2...exd4 because they don't want to spend a lot of space analyzing an opening that no one plays. 2...Nc6 is certainly playable, perhaps even best, and I have no doubt that it suffices for equality. It transposes to 1.d4 Nc6 (the unusual, but quite playable, Queen's Knight Defense) 2.c3?! (passive) e5. 2...e4 is probably playable as well, reaching a sort of Caro-Kann Advance Variation with colors reversed, and thus an extra tempo for Black (i.e. for White in this case). Note that White can play 3.c4!? to inhibit ...d5.

Black should not have a hard time equalizing against 1.c3. 1...e5 seems rather obliging to me. I would probably play either 1...d5 or 1...Nf6 (stopping 2.e4) 2.d4 g6 (2...d5=) 3.Nd2 d5. Krakatoa (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.c3 d5 2. e4?!

Problem with stated Plano gambit: not only is analysis somewhat unnecessary, 1. c3 d5 2. e4?! dxe4 3. Qa4+ does play out accurately, but as the article states 3. ...Nc6 4. Qxe4+, this is inaccurate. The black pawn on e4 is doubled and thus this is not a check, not to mention Black's response 4. ...Be7 is illegal as that square is occupied by the black pawn that the article's author/editor clearly has overlooked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.57.254 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem corrected with analysis. 1.c3 d5 2.e4?! dxe4 3.Qa4+ Nc6 4.Qxe4 Nf6 5.Qc2 e5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.182.106 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name Saragossa?

The name Saragossa Opening is derived from the Spanish city of Zaragoza.

True, but the article doesn't explain why this name was given to this opening after a tournament in Germany between three players with no apparent links to Zaragoza / Saragossa. Does anybody know?--Qgil (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I added a bit more from Hooper & Whyld that explains the origin of the name in a little more detail. Quale (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I'm from Barcelona (300 km far from Saragossa) and before yesterday I had no clue this opening existed with this name.--Qgil (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested in finding out more about the name of this opening, about 15 years ago I came across an old edition of Pablo Moran's A. Alekhine: Agony of a Chess Genius, where I recall there's a little discussion about how this opening was invented. I'm afraid I can't remember much more than that, but if anyone has a copy of that book, they might be able to add to the article. Cobblet (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I saw somewhere mentioned the name goes all the way back to Ruy Lopez, and the chess version without initial double pawn moves. Can't remember where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.5.47 (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]