Talk:Tennison Gambit

"Intercontinental Ballistic Missile" variation

The Intercontinental Ballistic Missile variation has been edited into the page multiple times, but it was ultimately removed eventually. The most recent removal states that it is "Not notable" while the original video has gathered almost 3.5 million views and other videos on the same variation have appeared. I do not see how this variation is not notable- can somebody clarify? - Waffledogefern (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I do think it's notable, though I don't think the 3.5M view argument holds any sway because the format it's presented in doesn't have any connection to its notability. But it is still an opening trap that's as notable and as playable as, say, the Fried Liver, which is supposedly notable enough to get its own Wikipedia page. Perhaps it's because this opening trap is inherently a joke, but that's also true of the Bongcloud which also has its own wikipedia article. Perhaps it's because no one's played it in official tournaments (as far as I'm aware), but that's also true of the Scholar's Mate, which also has its own article. Perhaps it's too new, but I would argue that it's as old as every other opening and as old as modern chess rules, as every possible chess opening and chess game was (sort of) invented when this ruleset was first settled on. -Guninvalid (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I fail to understand how openings and traps that are new and popularised by content creators have less legitimacy than those formulated in chess magazines by chess writers who bascially fulfil the same role. Hypothetical lines that are amusing . While upholding that newer 'meme' openings shouldn't be on an encyclopaedic platform is fair, but the Bongcloud, as Waffledogefern states has its own article. Granted, the Bongcloud has been played in serious tournaments, but that's because reaching the ICBM position in such an environment is impossible due to its nature of... winning a queen. The Fried Liver Trap has its own page where the main line is extensively detailed, yet such a position has only ocurred 14 times in professional OTB tournaments since 1952. Moreover, this is only true because it's parent is the Two Knight's Italian Game has appeared 12,000 times, whereas ICBM's parent, the Tennison Gambit has appeared 15 times. - VN28

The Tennison Gambit itself is barely notable, I don't think a spinoff, which has no reliable third party coverage, is notable for wiki. Read WP:NOTABILITY, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." This is more Know your meme than Wikipedia. Flalf^Talk 13:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Checkmate trap

When White continues 3. Ne5 instead of 3.Ng5 there is an option for a quick checkmate trap:

1. e2-e4 d7-d5

2. Ng1-f3 d5xe4

3. Nf3-e5 Ng8-f6 (defending e4)

4. Bf1-c4 Nb8-c6?? (normally a sensible move but ignores the threat on f7)

5. Bc4xf7#.

This resembles both Scholar's mate and Legal's mate somewhat. Probably another "cheap" opening trap most good players would not fall for, and that will end White with a disadvantage if Black defends properly against it. Therefore not likely to show up in chess tournaments a lot. 2003:E7:7704:E988:5434:1793:3C89:B85B (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)