Talk:Diemer–Duhm Gambit

notability?

This is not listed by the Oxford Companion to Chess. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the notability box because I have added secondary reliable sources--Manuel0302 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuel0302 (talk • contribs)

I have reinstated the notability box. The largest online database I have access to gives only four games played between master-level players in this variation. Nor is the opening notable for historical reasons. The sources listed make no more than a "trivial mention" of this line. I propose redirecting this article to French Defence. Cobblet (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the mention in the book of Paul Keres may be considered trivial because he dismisses the gambit as incorrect giving only a few lines of analysis. On the other hand it seems to me that the coverage of the gambit given by Eric Schiller cannot be considered trivial. However, I agree that this article can be redirected to the French Defence. Manuel0302 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with redirecting it and merging anything possible. There is just too little here, and (as I said above) it isn't in the Oxford Companion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep the info in the article but merging looks like the way to go. It's a very rare side line, only notable player to try it is Frank Marshall. One issue though, should it be considered a side line of the French or of the Queen's Gambit Declined? (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e4) MaxBrowne (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ECO code

The article gives the ECO code for the Diemer-Duhm Gambit as C00. But the ECO file in Scid gives it as D30 (and the DDG entries in the file are quite detailed, so this is unlikely to be a mistake). Could someone with a copy of ECO have a look and confirm the code? --Zundark (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The D30 code is the Queen's Gambit Declined, but mostly covers 3.Nf3 lines, so C00 is probably right. I doubt ECO has more than a single footnote on it. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Scid ECO file agrees with you that D30 is mostly about 3.Nf3. But before the 3.Nf3 lines it mentions 3.e3, 3.e4 (the Diemer-Duhm Gambit), 3.g3, 3.cxd4 and 3.Bf4. There is no mention of 3.c4 in the (very small) portion of C00 that deals with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5. So I think D30 is correct, but I was hoping for someone with a copy of ECO to confirm this before I edited the article. --Zundark (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't change it on the basis of a piece of freeware. C00 covers other weird French side-lines like 3.Bd3, 3.Be3 etc so it makes sense to include 3.c4 in this classification. D30 primarily covers 3.Nf3 lines. Also I'm guessing Diemer-Duhm players are more likely to reach the gambit via the French Defence. D30 could be mentioned as an alternative but I wouldn't use it for the primary classification. I doubt ECO mentions the line at all. I'll ask at WP Chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the WP Chess discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 29#Diemer-Duhm Gambit classification, and the conclusion was that the correct code is C01 (not C00 or D30). --Zundark (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]