Jump to content

Talk:Modern Benoni

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Impressions

[edit]

Very good article indeed. I would not change much at all. By referencing all of the major, contemporary works, it should be much less susceptible to nuisance edits in the future. That's not to say that it won't evolve as more modern books appear, but blocking the casual POV entry can be problematic when the original sources are murky or non-existent. I think the depth is about right too. Some long lines were probably necessary to show typical long term plans/play in the strategy sections, whereas you have been much more restrained when discussing individual lines, thus avoiding any arguments over the absolute, up-to-date, cutting edge theory. Well judged I think. A couple of small suggestions - for consistency, I'd probably move the Snake Benoni stuff to Benoni Defense- it is after all just another deviation away from the Modern Benoni, not unlike the Czech Benoni or Benko Gambit. Secondly, not sure if I saw Albert Kapengut wiki-linked - maybe it happened early in the article and I missed it. Finally, I'd probably mention the Mikenas Attack in the Variations section. I think it has enough history/notoriety to be regularly looked up by readers and its inclusion there will make it much easier to find. Maybe just say something like "7.f4 - Leading in most cases to the Taimanov, or the less popular Mikenas Attack" if you are concerned about it having an unwarranted equal emphasis. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love your suggestions and have incorporated all of them. I didn't see how I could avoid mentioning the Four Pawns if I mentioned the Mikenas there (the latter is half as common as 8.Nf3), so now I've mentioned all of them. That Four Pawns transposition is an unusual situation—ECO actually classifies that line under the Modern Benoni, so it's not wrong to call it the Four Pawns Attack of the Modern Benoni and some books that do just that (even though White's only got three pawns!), but it's become the main line of the Four Pawns Attack in the KID these days, which is covered in some detail over at King's Indian Defence, Four Pawns Attack#The main line and there was no point in me duplicating the coverage in this article. Originally I decided not to mention the Mikenas in the spot you mentioned just to avoid the whole issue of whether or not to call the Four Pawns a transposition, but now the cat's out of the bag :)
If you ever get a second chance to look at the article, let me know if you have more thoughts. Thanks again. Cobblet (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I scanned my copy of Beating The Indian Defences (1997) by Burgess & Pedersen (about 10 pages on the Modern Benoni), to see if there was anything of independent worth, but it really just mirrored part of your historical summary—and whilst the analysis there appeared well referenced (several named originators and sources), it probably wouldn't add anything useful at the entry level, where I think the article should stay.
I'm curious that you've referenced Donner as 'Erven J. H.' in connection with The King. Can you elaborate on that? Brittle heaven (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. That's how he gives his name next to the copyright, but elsewhere in the book it's just J. H. Donner. I'll fix that. Thanks for pointing out Burgess & Pedersen — it could come in handy if we ever wanted to expand on the history of the MML. Cobblet (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, 'Erven' means that the copyright is with the inheritors of Donner's estate, as the book was published after his death. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. That makes sense. Thanks again for spotting that. Cobblet (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Modern Benoni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article. I'm more of a Nimzo-Indian fan myself, but this opening certainly has merit :) I'll have comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, so am I :) I do have a question that I couldn't find answered in WP:MOS: is the use of vide infra and vide supra or their abbreviations discouraged? There are several places in this article where I want to refer to things said earlier/later and while wikilinks help, I still need text I can wikilink. Or maybe you can suggest ways I could organize things better. Thanks for your help and I look forward to your comments. Cobblet (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't answer your question, but it is related to it: WP:IBID. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've solved this issue with anchors. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I thought this was a very well-written article, and I enjoyed reading it. Below are some suggestions for you to consider. I'll spot-check some of the sources soon. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading on, I see that article twice states that Nunn gave up the Benoni because of the Taimanov attack, but only the second instance is cited. Consider removing the first instance.
  • "By the end of the decade, the Modern Main Line had also emerged as a dangerous weapon for White, which only compounded Black's troubles." source?
  • "According to Donner, while he spent over two hours on the game, Tal used only fifteen minutes." Is this detail relevant for this article?
    • It's definitely not essential and I wouldn't mind removing it. I included it to illustrate how easy Black's play can be (for Tal, anyway!) and how even grandmasters can have trouble coping with it. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Ojanen, Keres
  • "Black's half-open e-file also grants him a certain degree of influence" why "also"?
  • "A rook on e8 will pressurize White's e-pawn" I don't think using "pressurize" like this is "proper" English (see here)
  • "… Tal would go on to win his first Soviet championship." Perhaps unnecessary detail? If you disagree, then at least add a source.
  • end of first paragraph of "Variations" needs a citation
  • "Nevertheless, the most critical lines"
  • "Here theory divides into three major branches:" Need a source for this and for "White also has several important alternatives, the most popular of which are:" soon after
    • Palliser's Chess Developments: Modern Benoni divides the 7.Nf3 lines into three chapters in exactly the way I mentioned. I could cite the book but I'm not sure what page number to cite—the table of contents, perhaps? With respect to statements regarding popularity, these are generally observations I glean from databases (chesstempo.com is what I use these days.) If this is considered WP:OR I could remove the words "most popular". Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was recently recommended for White" avoid the use of the dateable term "recently"; similar issue with calling Gashimov the "current" strongest practitioner ... is there a way to reword this?

Non-Reviewer Comment. I note that Marshall is given credit for the MB's 'invention' on three occasions (lede/photo/history). Whilst I can see that Keene may have inferred this in Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, he chooses the word "introduced" rather than "invented". The reason for this word choice becomes more apparent in Palliser's Modern Benoni: Revealed pp.18-20, when he explains that the Modern Benoni concept first appeared in Alekhine-Capablanca, played earlier in the same tournament, and we can see that Marshall then develops the idea a step further. Notice Palliser also uses the term '"introduced" rater than 'invented'. It may depend on your definition of 'invent', but my dictionary mentions "an original idea" and for that reason I would probably change the wording slightly. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Certainly there were previous games that featured the opposing pawn majorities that characterize the Modern Benoni. The earliest example I could find was Burn–Pollock, Hastings 1895. But the point of the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 move order is to force this pawn structure, and Marshall was the first person to play this way. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've spot checked a few sources and found them to be accurately represented. The sources are reliable and relevant for an article of this nature. All images have appropriate licenses. I'm confident that the article meets all of the good article criteria, and am happy to promote it at this time. Good work, and please write more articles! Sasata (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect quotation from Nimzowitsch?

[edit]

″History″ says: ″Nimzowitsch […] labelled Marshall’s opening an ′unfortunate′ ′extravagance′ in his annotations […]″. This is possibly not correct. What does the original quotation from Nimzowitsch say? And what is the original source of this quotation? It is a well-known fact that Nimzowitsch’s books and articles are in German. Nimzowitsch says in his annotations on the game against Marshall (New York 1927) only this (after 1. c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3. Nf3 c5): ″Ergibt ein beeengtes Spiel.″ (″Results in a cramped play.″) The source of this quotation is Nimzowitsch’s book Die Praxis meines Systems. --Wikiraven65 (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Keene, I do not have access to Nimzowitsch's extensive writings. If I had to find the original quote I'd probably start by looking through issues of Bernhard Kagan's Neueste Schachnachrichten. Cobblet (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Modern_Benoni&oldid=1204038919"