Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

WP:NOT not being followed

I ran across one of the pages about opening chess moves and was startled to find opinions being given for responses to the moves. Describing a common move, defense, or opening is one thing - but the majority of articles at Category:Chess openings introduce original research and unverified claims. Who says if a response is "offbeat" or "lively"? And it's How-to info at best and pure OR at worst, to suggest a best response or list the variety of ways one might respond to an opening. After the guff I have to put up with while dealing with Pokemon related articles, I'm surprised that a topic that this has been allowed to succumb to so much OR and gamecruft. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Chess is not Pokemon. There exist a vast literature about chess openings and huge databases of master games here, so the articles are not OR, but mostly extracts from independently published sources. But I agree that they should be better referenced.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember writing many of these chess opening articles years back, and I can only apologize that I was not particularily conscientious of the need for sourcing things back then. But Ioannes is right that there is a wealth of chess literature, especially on openings which can back up nearly all, if not all the claims in those articles. For instance, an "irregular" opening is one with very few entries in a chess database, or one classified as "A00" by the ECO. You mentioned a concern that the article's labelling of some openings as offbeat or mainstream. Let's look at Damiano Defense. OK, it labels move 2...f6 with a "?". But it can be backed up: the Oxford Companion to Chess says that the move was "correctly" condemned by Damiano (who therefore got his name attached to the opening). For a comparison with paper encyclopedias, I can mention that my version of Aschehoug has a (very short) article on the Caro-Kann Defense which notes its reputation as a solid opening. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, good general references for all chess openings are Modern Chess Openings, Standard Chess Openings and Nunn's Chess Openings. In addition there are usually several good opening books on each of the major opening lines (some giving detailed description on a single variation of an opening), and for the non-major openings... well Eric Schiller and Joel Benjamin wrote a book called Unorthodox Chess Openings. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm acually aware that many of these things could be sourced (incidentally, many things about pokemon could be sourced, but that's a different arguement). The problem is that the large majority are not, these sources you're giving me would fit very nicely and remove (more appropriately) the "sense" of OR in these articles. There don't seem to be too many, and if many of them are found within the same reference then citing them should be a breeze. However, just citing a ref as these are written really isn't enough, it still sounds like advice. A better way might be to say something like "according to..." or "the ECO classifies this move as X meaning Y." -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read many of these articles, and I agree that they need to be sourced. Although a lot of it may appear to be original research or opinion, I think it could probably be properly sourced from standard opening books. But it does need to be sourced. Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I figured the ChessGames.com Opening Explorer may be used as a reference with claims such as "White continues most often with Qb3 or Rc1" and "Characteristic for Black is the ...c5 counter-thrust or the defensive ...c6" as in Grünfeld gambit. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just thought I'd chime in and concur, a lot of those pages are unsourced, and frankly, not very much more than a guide to playing that opening. That may be useful to folks who play chess, and can understand the articles, but me, I continue to be befuddled by them. I seriously think this Wikiproject needs to put the clean-up of Category:Chess openings on its to-do list. I'll go through and tag some of the unreferenced examples right now, just to point them out. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, if you read WP:NOT and refer to the section on "Wiki is not paper" you can see that it's been said that as long as things are referenced (i.e. as long as someone has written about it, and that "it" already satisfies the condition of being notable, which chess does) there is no reason that wikipedia cannot contain information on the subject in order to be comprehensive - the example given is with Poker. My main problem is that while chess and poker are granted this clemency, many video game related articles are not, basically because they are oft cited as being gamecruft or gameguide. I think that the spirit of wiki not being paper and allowing discussion of strategy is so that all notable aspects of a subject are included. If the discussion of strategy in a game is notable enough to warrant published material by a reputable source (i.e. not my myspace blog) then that strategy should be included. For example, i would not expect to find an article on the strategies of War. The only thing is that strategy discussions NEED to be referenced because the opportunity for original research is so high. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, if you go to WP:NOT#IINFO, you'll see that just because something is written, doesn't mean it goes on Wikipedia. The subject of chess openings overall? No problem with it. The current category though, is a sprawling mess of minor openings and pages that are of dubious quality and merit. They are frequently no more than how-to guides and instruction manuals, written in what I'd consider overly technical terms. Perhaps great stuff for a Chess Wiki, but Wikipedia is meant to be general-purpose. I'm also concerned that List of chess openings is nothing more than a Directory.
Still, respecting that there may be something to be done, I'd go with trying to get some clean-up done. I'd help, but honestly, most of the time, I look at these articles and I'm scratching my head at the notation. So what I'm hoping to do is prod some action. FrozenPurpleCube 18:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
If you find any overly technical terms that are not described in either chess or chess opening just point them out here or on the article's talk page and we'll see if something can/should be done about them. I think, however, that it is safe to assume some previous knowledge of chess from the reader. To me, for example, the articles Arsphenamine and Lipschitz continuity appear to be written using overly technical terms but I don't care, because I don't need to know anything about their subjects and if I really needed to, I'd be happy to read enough background material to understand them. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
He can also see chess terminology, rules of chess, and list of chess topics. Bubba73 (talk), 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And Algebraic chess notation. Bubba73 (talk), 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestion

While I do not believe deleting opening articles (see this AfD) is the way to go, there could certainly be some cleanup - how about merging and redirecting some of the stub articles on irregular openings to a single Irregular Chess openings article? Should I be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do it?

Articles I have merged;

2...Bf5 Defence & Baltic Defense

Barnes Opening & Gedult's Opening

I've also redirected Épine Dorsale to Italian Game.

Articles I suggest could be merged into the above article. Note: I have not suggested openings that arise from another (i.e. Blackburne Shilling Gambit which if anything would be merged into Italian Game).

  1. Alapin's Opening
  2. Amar Opening
  3. Anderssen's Opening
  4. Balogh Defense
  5. Barnes Opening
  6. Benko's Opening
  7. Clemenz Opening
  8. Desprez Opening
  9. Dunst Opening
  10. Durkin Opening
  11. Englund Gambit
  12. Fred Defence
  13. Grob's Attack (might be notable enough to have its own page?)
  14. Kangaroo Defense
  15. Mieses Opening
  16. Napoleon Opening
  17. Parham Attack
  18. Polish Defense
  19. Portuguese Opening
  20. Saragossa Opening
  21. Sokolsky Opening
  22. St. George Defense
  23. Van 't Kruijs Opening
  24. Ware Opening

Comments welcome.

First off, I suggest moving this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess so that the Chess Project can be more properly aware of the situation, and maybe you can get some action done. This is just too out of the way a place to discuss it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, the biggest problem I have with your proposal is that it has no reasoning behind it, and that you haven't even looked at the real problem behind the articles, namely that so many of them are nothing but algebraic notations of chess openings, with at best a brief mention of some person playing it. I have yet to be convinced of the encyclopedic value of that. Especially since there so many chess openings with names and codes. There's currently 196 odd articles in this category. Do we want that to grow even further? FrozenPurpleCube 14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well this proposal would remove 21 (edit:24) of those 196 to begin with! After that, I suggest merging a lot of the articles based on the same openings into the articles for that particular opening. That will remove an enormous amount. The reasoning, btw, is that the irregular openings are very rarely played in serious chess and therefore probably don't need their own articles. EliminatorJR Talk 14:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think merging all of those articles into one article Irregular chess openings is a good idea. For one thing, it would make that article too long. I think that the article on irregular openings should list all of these, though. Several of the articles listed are stubs that need to be expanded, but several are not. Of course, there is the bigger issue that there are many stubs about sub-variations of openings that need to be merged. This has been discussed, but I don't think anything has been done about it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Basically I was looking at this one step at a time. First of all, irregular article stubs. Next, merging multiple articles on variations of the same openings. Now I realise that might not be possible for all openings (merging all the variations of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez may result in unmanageable articles, but it's a point for comment. Tell you what - I'll create a test version of Irregular chess openings in userspace, then everyone can comment on it. EliminatorJR Talk 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Example. OK, how about an article that looks like this? I've done the first couple of articles. Comments? EliminatorJR Talk 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
(replying to both of you). The problem isn't simply the numbers, but the lack of reasoning. With 196 pages to go through, not to mention the numerous other chess openings that could be conceivably added, it's very important to have at least some idea what to do. I don't need hard rules, but any kind of baseline would be nice. Besides, is there any point to an actual merger for those pages? I agree with Bubba73, even if I wasn't uncertain that such an article would be of value beyond listing the specifics of the opening (better served at some chess book elsewhere IMHO), the length would be a problem. Not to mention it has to actually happen. Which is exactly why I felt an AFD was appropriate. The problem is known, and if not specifically decided upon a given result, aware of its existence. But nothing has been done about it over the course of months and possibly even years. Instead, there's a mass of articles, with no real rhyme or reason for any of them. I'm sure all of them can be documented and referenced to a certain degree, but is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to have hundreds of pages on chess openings? A few, yes, but there ought to be some limit. This isn't to say you can't transwiki them all elsewhere if you want, I've got no objections to the content as such. I just don't like the way it is now. FrozenPurpleCube 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll give some examples of what I consider especially bad pages among those you named.
  • Barnes Opening (unreferenced, but even if that were the only problem, the only content besides instructions on how to play the opening is a brief mention of use in a British championship. and another claiming its origins with two other players. I can see describing this opening in Thomas Barnes (questions of whether to cover him or not is a different concern), but this is nothing but an instructional manual to a particular opening.)
  • Fred Defence (marginal references as external links, content describes a few games in the 30s, but that's brief in comparison to the instruction parts, and maybe an offhand joke in a Chess game? That's trivia at best.)
  • Kangaroo Defense (Nothing but instructions on this particular opening, no way to tell how important it is or isn't)
  • Polish Defense (unreferenced, brief mentions of play by a few masters, again, more instructions and information)
  • Saragossa Opening (unreferenced, no idea why it's named after the Spanish city, the theme tournament doesn't seem notable at all. )
  • Ware Opening (wow, a reference, but wait, all this says is instructions on the opening and that it's named after Preston Ware. Who doesn't even have an article of his own. )
Note, this isn't an endorsement of the others named, I'm just picking out what seems to be the worst of the lot. I'm sure many people have written fine books on Chess openings, and may have included these. But simply being attributable isn't enough. This may be valuable information to some chess players, but is Wikipedia really the right place to cover them in this way? FrozenPurpleCube 15:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, surely that's exactly the point - how much of a problem is it, for example, to mention the Ware Opening in a single sentence in a merged article? And can you please stop referring to opening definitions as "how-to" articles? - they're plainly not. It's not like a video game walkthrough - you couldn't learn how to play, say, the Sicilian Defence from its article.EliminatorJR Talk 16:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a problem, the thing is, I don't know that it's worthwhile. There are apparently hundreds, if not thousands of such openings. That would make any listing of them more a directory than anything else. Even breaking down to various branches doesn't fix that problem, it just spreads it out even more. I do not feel that's necessarily valuable for Wikipedia because it provides little context, and it might be better served elsewhere. And while I'm sure you might not learn how to effectively play the Sicilian Defense from its article, the fact is, large sections of that article, and these other articles are clearly instructions on play. Not just reasonable descriptions of the opening, but detailed recountings of the opening variations including advice on what the various moves mean.
If that isn't a how-to, then please tell me what it is. Convince me that it's something besides an attempt to teach you how to play the opening. Give me some purpose to it besides that. If this isn't identical to any of the various descriptions of how to say, beat a level of Quake, then it's so close that there isn't any difference to me. Simply saying "No it's not" doesn't change my mind. That's an assertion, not an argument. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Note, don't get me wrong, I am not adamantly and completely opposed to any opening descriptions at all. I believe, and I have believed for quite a while (if you look at the archives, I'm said this all before, so forgive me if I sound a tad irritated) that there is an acceptable amount of such coverage. The current state of articles far exceeds that. FrozenPurpleCube 17:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
A level walkthrough tells you how to beat the level from beginning to end. A definition of a chess opening merely tells you how to play the first few moves. There is little about continuation, strategy or tactics for that opening. To use the Quake example, it'd be like telling a gamer "at the start of the level, turn left, then right ... then you're on your own". Incidentally, have you seen the example nascent merged Irregular openings article in my userspace? EliminatorJR Talk 17:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, no. I see no distinction between the two based simply on the length or completeness. If you made the hypothetical Quake page that didn't cover the whole level, it'd be just as deletable as these. If you want me to extend the analogy, an article, even on a whole Quake level doesn't tell you about the rest of the game. Heck, I could conceivably write a game describing various strategies in a FPS without specifically describing any levels at all. (this would be even easier in a game like World of Warcraft where the characters can be customized and geared specifically.) Thus, I see no difference. Sorry if this offends, but as I see it, your claim is arbitrary and lacking substance. There is nothing that says a how-to isn't a how-to if it's not complete and exhaustive. FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And your page is far too incomplete for me to even begin to comment on it fully, but how about an explanation to why these chess openings are called irregular? That would be helpful information. FrozenPurpleCube 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
And as I said on the AfD, some alternative to the algebraic notation would be nice. It's not necessary to remove it, but rather supplement it. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, contents like "Like the standard Dragon Variation, Black develops his bishop to g7 in the Accelerated Dragon. The difference is that Black avoids playing ...d7-d6, so that he can later play ...d7-d5 in one move if possible." are very much strategy and tactics. If you can conceive of more to add it, that changes nothing. FrozenPurpleCube 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point I'm trying to make on the 'how-to', I think. I believe the opening articles to be equivalent to an article giving an overview of a video game, but without telling them how to play the game. As for the openings themselves, "Irregular" openings are basically openings that aren't played very often, mainly because they're technically weaker than "regular" ones. However, many of those openings are useful as 'surprise' tactics, especially against weaker players. (There is a more technical definition of an irregular opening, but this is the one that is probably suitable for Wikipedia). EliminatorJR Talk 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, that actually make things worse in my mind. Telling people how to play a game is one thing, detailing the contents of a level is another. Neither is especially encyclopedic. They are both problems. If all an article constituted was a list of moves, then I'd say it should easily be deleted. That might be valid content somewhere, but it's not for a general purpose encyclopedia, any more than listing the stats for a baseball game are. Sure, the world series is case where those stats are appropriate, but the rest of the season? Not so muc. You're focusing on the 'how-to' issue (and I see the obvious instructions even in chess openings I can accept keeping), and missing the rest of the point, namely that there's no other substance to the article. Yes, there may be some concepts in chess openings that merit their own articles. I can understand how irregular chess openings could be one of them, but the current standard is to allow anything at all. That is just too much. FrozenPurpleCube 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to propose something to consider, but I'm not sure it is the best thing to do. How about making the Irregular Openings artice "summary style", and limit each opening to about one paragraph (edit: to keep the article from getting too long). Then for ones that have more, link to a "Main" article (e.g. Anderson, Benko, Grob, etc). I'm not saying that is the best thing to do, but let's consider it. Bubba73 (talk), 23:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes - that's a very good idea. I'll incorporate it into my userspace article. EliminatorJR Talk 23:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The way it i shaping up in Wikipedia:Summary style looks good to me. But reading the text of "Clemenz Opening", be sure that is referenced to a reliable source. Bubba73 (talk), 00:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Can't source that, so I've rewritten it. Plenty of references to Clemenz, but none linking him to the opening!. I've altered Dunst Opening to QN Opening, as it has so many names in different countries it seems easier to give it a generic name so as to avoid WP:CSB EliminatorJR Talk 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see this helping as much as might be hoped. The problem needs to be addressed not at the style of an article, but rather the concept of what the article should contain. If all you're going to tell me is that the Clemenz opening is named after Hermann Clemenz...it's really not all that much in the way of substance. He doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, so his notability is in doubt (A web search turns up a few of his games and absolutely nothing else). The rest of that section is instructions on the opening, describing the playable responses, suggesting the most common, and saying what's most logical, what is bad for one player, what's good for another. That is clearly instructions. So even if it could be referenced, it's inclusion in Wikipedia is borderline. I might accept it in a list of irregular openings (though that could have problems of its own), but the strategy parts ought to go elsewhere. FrozenPurpleCube 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As you can see, I've stripped the strategy elements down to their bare minimum, leaving a bare desription of each opening, plus any additional (non-strategic) information that can be sourced. EliminatorJR Talk 12:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FrozenPurpleCube, I don't know if you have ever played chess yourself, but I find articles such as Barnes Opening and Kangaroo Defense very interesting and well-written. You probably won't find as good descriptions of them elsewhere in the web. For what it's worth, I'd also like to refer to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. The sheer number of the articles shouldn't be a problem. EliminatorJR's page looks rather odd with some openings described and some just having the "See main article" link. I also think a diagram is a must for each opening, which the page currently does not provide. "some alternative to the algebraic notation would be nice" You aren't suggesting the articles provided the moves in both algebraic notation and in, say, descriptive chess notation, are you? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps you need to refer to WP:ATA which provides several arguments as to why saying something is interesting is not a good argument. In particular, I suggest you read further down on WP:NOT to the WP:NOT#IINFO section and explain to me exactly how these pages are not instruction manuals.
Liking pages, liking chess, all things that are laudable in their own right, but they do not equate to keeping an article. And that's all you've said to me, that you like these articles. That doesn't persuade me of anything.
If you truly want to keep these pages somewhere, perhaps you might wish to check Wikibooks or look for a chess specific wiki to move them to. They are not, however, demonstrated as encyclopedic, and no matter how much you, or possibly thousands enjoy them, that opinion isn't going to make them viable contents for an encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Quote from FrozenPurpleCube, a couple of comments ago: "I just don't like the way it is now." Disliking pages do not equate to deleting an article. I don't really understand your problem. You want some openings deleted and you are the one to judge, which ones? I mean, I totally agree that pages like Foo Opening, Bar line, Baz defence, 27. Rd3 should be merged into Foo Opening or at least Foo Opening, Bar line, if that would make the Foo Opening article too long. I just don't think that your point about selecting some openings for deletion and some not is solid. There are only 14 openings listed in the Irregular chess openings article. They account for a very tiny bit of those 196 articles. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can only assume you're taking my remarks out of context because you weren't following the discussion. If you'll read the whole remark, you'll see that I provided numerous grounds for why I didn't "like" the way the category is now. It's not a question of me liking the subject, it's a question of me findingthat the contents of the category do not comply with established Wikipedia principles and procedures, such as attribution, notability, and indiscriminate information. I suppose you could boil that down to a sense of not liking it, but to do so is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, I ask that you review what I said in full, and respond to that. If you can't understand it, well, I don't know how I can explain further to you, perhaps you should review previous discussion? Or maybe you could try to ask some questions? And note, I'm not saying that I am the one to judge. I have consistently sought input and information from other people so that a consensus can form to establish sound guidelines to proceed in improving what is perceived to be a problem.
And just in case you are curious, as well as to provide an explanation as to why I took the course I did, with 196 articles to go through, I do not feel it's possible to go through in one step and decide what to do. That is the sort of thing that I feel is best done in stages. Sure, there are times when a top-down review is appropriate, but in this case, where the subject isn't the overall problem, but rather the specific way it has been handled....well, I think it's best to work from the button up. In contrast, I suggest you review the situation regarding List of Zip Codes which is more of a subject where all the articles are of roughly the same nature. FrozenPurpleCube 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can come up with a better way to address the problems I have had, please, do let me know. FrozenPurpleCube 05:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi - yes, my page is really a work in progress and comments are welcome. I have tried to conform to summary style. However, as regards diagrams, I was worried about page size. I'll try another version with diagrams to see how unwieldy it is. EliminatorJR Talk 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
And here it is (in userspace, again). EliminatorJR Talk 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the current arrangement, each opening on their own article, looks better. Your layout suits well for discussing several variants of one opening but these are all individual openings. Besides, if the chapters about the openings merged into your page grow to become as big as the ones you have left as "See main article" links, they would have to be split out of the page for consistency. It doesn't make sense to me to first merge articles and then separate them again. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I doubt that many of the obscure irregular openings will ever have articles that grow to any extent. Some of them are already bigger than they need to be, with lists of variations rather than reference links. However, given your input, let me try a test merge of a major opening, to see how it looks. EliminatorJR Talk 16:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • First off, regarding the irregular first moves for White, I strongly oppose merging them, because the only thing they have in common is that they are rarely played. In a strategic chessic sense, the openings have very different characteristics. Second, it is not at all obvious where a cutt-off point between "rare" and "common" should go. The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings does lump the irregular moves into a chapter called A00, but for some reason a fairly common move like 1.g3 winds up in that chapter. I was amazed to see that 1.g4 was listed as "(might be notable enough to have its own page?)" on the list while the Benko was not, 1.g3 is a very regular opening move, in fifth place in popularity according to the ChessBase database. Edmar Mednis even called the move "perfect" as the mainstream 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. Other reference works like the Oxford Companion to Chess treats each of these opening moves seperately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you look at the example article in userspace, you'll see that I left the Benko in its own article. This was the idea - merge some irregulars, leave others as individual articles, EliminatorJR Talk 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It's all very nice to assert that there are whole books on how to play these openings, but do they say anything beyond that? What is the scope of their content? How can you get past WP:NOT#IINFO when most of these pages are heavily instructions, with no interest in coverage beyond that? Besides, can't you just say in correspondence chess that the Dunst opening is a common choice (assuming you have a reliable source about that)? FrozenPurpleCube 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comment betrays a lack of knowledge in chess. "Can't you just say in correspondence chess that the Dunst opening is a common choice?" The answer is a very clear NO, for starters because it is NOT a common choice in correspondence chess either, and a comment like that would be highly irrelevant in that article. It is true that a World Champion, van Geet, frequently used the opening, as any reasonable chess game database will tell you.
Second, the Dunst Opening article is not an instructional guide to the opening. If you have read an instructional guide in chess you will see a clear difference in the language used. An instruction manual is really heavy on analysis, the current article barely scratches the surface. Indeed, the first paragraph is on the naming and etymology, the second is about popularity, the third discusses basic strategy, the fourth discusses possible transpositions to other openings and coverage in ECO, at the end we have a few examples of contemporary usage. None of this is made with the intention of teaching a student how to play the Dunst. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I mispoke. My bad. Refactor my statement to specify that it's a common choice by this champion, assuming that there is some notability to him playing Correspondence chess. Heck, why can't you just say in that champion's article that he favors the opening? (Not that there seems to be an article on Dirk van Geet, so we don't know how notable he is) ? Besides, I'd say statements like "Here is a quick victory by Dunst himself against ten-time U.S. Women's Champion Gisela Gresser. It illustrates the problems that White's rapid development can pose if Black is not careful:" are clearly meant to instruct someone on the article. That doesn't even tell folks about the importance of the game. Does that game actually matter anyway? This level of analysis is far beyond the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. I have already said why the assertion that more analysis is possible doesn't convince me either. I'm sure many articles cold be more detailed, but that doesn't make them any less instruction manuals. Now there may be enough substance in the subject that the article itself can be improved, but that is not the case now, and I don't see you doing anything to fix it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
And as I've said before, perhaps I am ignorant. I have tried to seek further knowledge on the proper course of events. Nonetheless, I'm concerned that you are biased. Can you honestly say you've looked at this from a perspective that isn't colored by your knowledge and fondness for the subject of chess? Have you even thought to look? FrozenPurpleCube 17:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) Many people other than van Geet have played that opening. (2) He probably has played a lot of other openings. The article is about the opening itself. Bubba73 (talk), 20:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(1) If other people have played that opening, then perhaps coverage of that *might* make for a good article, but in that case, why was it brought up that Van Geet's play of it meant something? And who are these people, and what's the notability in their play of it? (2). If he's played lots of other openings, than why was the assertion made for playing that one? You can't have it both ways. Either there's some notability to van Geet playing this opening or not, if not, then how much reason is there to have an article about it? Especially when the focus of the article is not on the history, but on telling people about how to play it? FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously other people have played that opening. You can't list all of them. Neither can you list every opening the van Geet has played. If you look up Fender Stratocaster guitar, you will probably see a few people who have played one. You can't list everyone who has played a Fender. Bubba73 (talk), 00:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Of course you can't list everybody, the point is to list the people whose play of it is notable. If there's nothing notable about Van Geet's play of the opening, then again, there's no point in asserting its meaningful. However, simply saying he played it? Not quite enough. Especially when Dirk Daniel Van Geet has no article. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
But since you bring up Fender Stratocaster, if you look at it, there's not one single instruction on how to play one. (And I'm not sure that the current articles on the various signature models are appropriate, but that's another problem.). There is List of Stratocaster players and a featured list List of Telecaster players, which both require right at the top that any players on the list have significant usage of it before being added. Has this been done for any of the Chess opening? Not so far as I know, and that demonstrates why the problem is not that there is zero notability to any particular chess opening, but rather, that the vast majority of the articles in the category don't have assertion of notability. If you can make a convincing case for improving Dunst Opening go ahead and fix up that article. Seriously, I'd be quite pleasif you made better articles. The thing is, I haven't seen that being done. FrozenPurpleCube 01:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Start the article List of players of the Dunst Opening if that will make you happy. I don't see what's wrong with the Dunst Opening article. Bubba73 (talk), 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to do that. And the problem with the Dunst opening is with the instruction parts of it. Is this somehow escaping you? FrozenPurpleCube 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the problem—it's your problem. Although you're trying to make it our problem, what seems to be escaping you is that most chess contributors find your arguments to be baseless. Wikipedia is a community effort, and I honestly don't see much community support for your views at all. I appreciate your attempts to engage the Wikipedia chess contributors, but at this point I don't think you are listening to anything anyone is saying. I think a few people in the Wikipedia chess community have been fairly patient in addressing your many complaints (certainly more patient than I have been), but I suspect at some point they will just give up and let you have the last word. You always write as if your opinion is the only one that matters, and it seems you will only be satisfied if everyone does exactly as you dictate. I don't think that's going to happen. We just don't agree with your basic premises or your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Quale 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see the comment right below this one, and please remember that it is important to comment on the content, not the contributor. Thank you. FrozenPurpleCube 13:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking through the chess opening articles, and Mister Manticore does have a point. Too many of the articles are just "these are the moves" + "some random opinion and strategy". What the articles should be doing is describing the history of chess openings. Find a proper chess encyclopedia and source facts like when the opening was first played, who it is named after, and any other historical information, such as the names of famous players (ie. those we have articles on) who played the opening (over their whole career, or only for a certain time period). Actual chess opinion should be avoided at all costs, as fashions change and Wikipedia cannot hope (and shouldn't want) to supply the latest opening theory. All the chess articles need to be reviewed for transient "chess opinion" and replaced with "chess history". Carcharoth 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a fair description of my problem. Thanks for your input. FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it isn't an accurate assessment of the situation. Wikipedia can hope to apply the latest opening theory, but more importantly than that, changing evaluations of chess openings and positions are part and parcel of the history of chess. It is akin to Single wing and Pro set in American football—the changing fashions over time are the life blood of the sport. Entire books have been written concerned primarily with new ideas in chess, with books by Richard Réti and Aron Nimzowitsch being famous examples early in the 20th century, and a couple of John L. Watson's books being recent examples. An excellent Wikipedia article on a chess opening should describe how views and evaluation of the opening have changed over time. Of course someone who is not familiar with chess couldn't be expected to know this. Quale 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. But in many cases, they don't actually do that. They focus on the moves and give specific advice, not historical perspective. FrozenPurpleCube 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right, it would improve the chess opening articles to include greater historical perspective. Perhaps you can help us add more history to the chess opening articles? Quale 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would be glad to, if any of the books I found on the chess openings had content other than long lists of game play and strategic advice with maybe one line that some people played this game, without any indication of its greater meaning. But with that problem, I can only conclude that my available resources are not up to the task. Perhaps there are others with better access, and to them I wish the greatest of luck. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is kind of revealing, isn't it? I have approximately 40 books on openings, and none of them are the way you want them to be. They have very little on the history of the opening and very little on who has played those openings. Their text is almost all about the moves, the strategy, and sample games. And for some reason, that seems to be reflected in the WP chess opening articles. Hmmm.... Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Mister M, I've been playing chess for over 40 years, and I have no idea what the "greater meaning" of chess openings you speak of in your comment above means. Bubba73 (talk), 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Which demonstrates my point, namely that the focus is primarily about instructions on how to play the opening, and not about its larger notability. Which of course leads to the article being well, what they are, instructions on how to play the opening. Fine for a book on Chess. Less fine for an encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've been playing chess for over 40 years, and I don't know what you mean by a chess opening's "larger notability". Bubba73 (talk), 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read Carcharoth's statement then. It expresses the point quite clearly. If you still don't understand, perhaps you might ask that user to clarify. I've tried to explain it to you for a couple of months now, but I've sadly made no headway. Thus I'm beginning to think such an explanation may be beyond me. BTW, I suggest you try to remember WP:EXPERT. You may be what you claim, I have no way of knowing that, and absolutely no interest in verifying it. Claiming you've been playing chess over 40 years is not going to convince me that you know better or anything at all really. If you want to convince me, try arguments that don't rely solely on your own claims of authority. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but they don't exist on Wikipedia. You are only your words, and they're just not persuasive. (And that's leaving aside the issue of people being wrong despite years of practice and training. Believe it or not, it does happen). FrozenPurpleCube 04:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion to Chess has some good historical information on some of the larger openings. Sadly, I do not have the newest 1996 edition (although I have seen it occasionally in my local library), and the edition from the 1980s, while still good, does not contain the same richness in detail. Even the Oxford Companion does give an overview of the basic strategies employed however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a great book but out of print. It also tends to be expensive. I have the first edition, but all I could afford was a used paperback copy of the old edition. I really need to bite the bullet and by a hardback copy of the newer edition. Bubba73 (talk), 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on the three mergers at the top:
  • 2...Bf5 Defence & Baltic Defense - was merged into 2...Bf5. I think it should be under Baltic. There are other pages that link to Baltic.
  • Barnes Opening & Gedult's Opening - OK
  • redirected Épine Dorsale to Italian Game - Make sure no info in the former was lost. Bubba73 (talk), 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the comment on the Baltic Defense merge—it was merged the wrong way. This is easy to fix. (I understand the concern about WP:CSB, but the problem is that first, 2...Bf5 is not a common name in English for this opening and second, 2...Bf5 is a poor title for any page and a poor search term. Quale 02:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, who would call thatthe "2... Bg5 defense" - it makes no sense unless you know the previous moves. I can see a case for something like "1. Ng3 opening". Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my bad - I should've thought about that a bit longer. The Epine Dorsale article was a couple-of-sentences article, with nothing additional that was encyclopedic. EliminatorJR Talk 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD

for an opening article -> here. EliminatorJR Talk 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep Blue - Kasparov matches. Debate on coverage

A discussion is brewing at Talk:Deep Blue - Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 on how best to cover the 1996 and 1997 matches, in particular the games. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Now there is an overarticle Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov, with two subarticles. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that one was well-made, a big thank you to those who worked on it! It has a introduction making the outline clear, and the game scores available for those who want the details. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Historical description of chess openings

Here is an example (from Queen's Gambit) of how chess opening articles should be written:

The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in an earlier manuscript in Göttingen. During the early period of modern chess queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna. As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship. Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.

The difficulty of course is that for many of the obscurer openings where it is easy to bash out a diagram and moves and general opening strategy, it is much harder to reliably source historical information on the opening or opening variation. If that is the case, then sadly Wikipedia cannot adequately cover the topic. Carcharoth 15:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

But then there are eleven (if I counted correctly) articles that give the details. The Queen's Gambit is a very large topic. Bubba73 (talk), 15:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the Queen's Gambit is one of the better attempts at a page. Not perfect, but at least in general the right idea. It has sources, it gives context and history. I do wish a bit of exposition on Luis Ramirez and Göttingen were in the article though. Yes, people can just click the wikilink, but it doesn't mean you can't say anything about them. Or heck, what was that 1873 tournament in Vienna that it became popular at? There isn't even a link to it. Somebody might be perplexed, and without even a link to know what it was. Leaving them to do what? Look elsewhere? At the least, mentioning that it was part of the Weltausstellung 1873 Wien would be nice. (Might be worth mentioning this tournament there, adding the same to List of strong chess tournaments. FrozenPurpleCube 21:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
And if all of those eleven subarticles were put into the main article, it would be largely moves and strategy, which you said is what you don't want. Most of the articles on openings are not large enough to have multiple sub-articles giving the details. Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps they don't need to be covered on Wikipedia, but removed, or if the content is valid, perhaps transwiki'ed elsewhere, such as to Wikibooks. If all you can do is describe the moves and strategy, I'm sorry if this continues to offend you, but there's no real way you can get past WP:NOT#IINFO. And what do you think of my other suggestions though? Would it be worthwhile to describe the circumstances of the tournament? FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I added all that material to Queen's Gambit back in April 2005 ([1]). What I didn't do then but should have, is properly source it. You're right that it would be good to have an article on the Göttingen manuscript, so I just created one. I only have one source handy (Oxford Companion to Chess comes to the rescue again), so the article is a bit spare. I enjoy the history of chess and would like to see more chess history on Wikipedia. I didn't and don't know anything about the Weltausstellung 1873 Wien, so if that's correct, it would be an excellent addition to the page. Quale 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • On a related note, however, I can't agree that chess articles should not contain algebraic chess notation or describe the basic chess strategy involved. First, the moves are absolutely required as the definition of the thing that the article is talking about. Without the moves, there's no way to distinguish one opening from any other. Second, without a discussion of the strategy and tactics, the ideas behind the opening will remain a mystery. One of the most basic questions any chess opening article should answer is "What are the advantages and disadvantages of this opening", or "Why would (or wouldn't) I (or someone else) play this opening?" Without moves and strategy, opening articles are incomplete and have no purpose. The Queen's Gambit article notes that Lucena wrote about it in 1497, but out of the (tens or hundreds) of thousands of opening moves in chess, what is so special about "1.d4 d5 2.c4" that Lucena chose to write about it? Why does this sequence of moves (and a several hundred others) have a name, when most sequences of beginning moves do not? Quale 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • For instance, I added this text to the Queen's Gambit article two years ago: "With 2.c4, White threatens to exchange a wing pawn (the c-pawn) for a center pawn (Black's d-pawn) and dominate the center with e2-e4. This is not a true gambit since if Black accepts the pawn he cannot expect to keep it." This is terribly elementary strategy and moves, but without it it is impossible to understand why anyone would ever play the Queen's Gambit instead of something else. Without the moves there's no discernible difference between the Queen's Gambit and Grob's Attack. It would be nonsensical to say "Grandmasters prefer the Queen's Gambit to Grob's Attack" without any explanation at all why, and this explanation requires moves and strategy. Maybe that's why you want so many chess articles deleted. Once you remove the parts you find objectionable there's no reason for the rest to remain. Quale 05:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I notice you're saying once again that you can't agree chess articles should not contain algebraic notation. The problem with that statement is, nobody is proposing that they shouldn't, it's a misconception on your part, and that of several other people. What I have been saying is that algebraic notation, and that only, is a problem. And you're right to say "what's so special" that Lucena chose to write about it. But the thing is, the article doesn't explain that. It provides a bare statement, and sadly, his article doesn't provide any further context itself. (Nor does your new article on Göttingen help much either. (I'll assume that you intend to rectify that though, by expanding the coverage). The key is to get beyond simple strategy and include significant context such as that. If that's not possible, then that's when the page should be deleted, or moved to another site. FrozenPurpleCube 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
In any case, while some moves may be necessary, is it truly necessary to list the moves of each and every variant? Even when no context or notability can be provided? It's one thing if say, Garry Kasparov can be referenced to say something on a given variant, but if he just played the opening at some point....then it'd better be a very important game on its own. Which of course, means, documenting that reaction in the Chess world. This is not something that has been done, instead the pages in this category are frequently just a list of moves with a bare bit of strategy to go with it. If there's mention of some game, there's no context given for the game. There's room for some chess openings on Wikipedia. But the current setup? It's not the way to do it. The pages are of haphazard quality at best, and Wikifarming at worst. (Sadly, many of the articles were obviously set up by a user who has already been accused of spamming Wikipedia with their external links). It's all nice to say covering Chess openings is important, but not every opening needs to be covered. And if they do, it needs to be something more than Staunton Gambit, which besides lacking references, provides minimal context, but is instead dominated by several example games. Then there's the Don't you think it'd be nice if the article explained why the games were important? (And I find the links to the java re-enactments of the games as a bit troublesome in the way of EL anyway). Then there's the [[King's Knight Opening which provides neither references, not any attempt at content beyond describing the move. Doesn't even mention the Reti Opening which I see it was created as a redirect as well. Perhaps this has just flown under the radar, but um, that's exactly my problem. Too much has grown up without actually working at it. FrozenPurpleCube 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This may be hard for you to realize, but I am not actually hostile to the subject of chess, or chess openings. I am, however, dismayed by the quality of these articles, as they lack encyclopedic content, references, and substance. Some of them are probably somebody's idea of getting their content wider exposure by using Wikipedia. Something has been needed to be done for a while, and yet...it has remained undone. It's one thing to like chess, and want chess to be well-covered on Wikipedia. But it's in need to be covered better, which doesn't mean more pages, but better ones. FrozenPurpleCube 14:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles Expanded, Input PLEASE!

I've just expanded Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4 considerably. I believe that this is a large part of sicilian theory and that enough data / information exists to make this a separate page. i've taken the section on yugoslav with 9.bc4 on the main sicilian page and merged it with this article as well as to expand on the ideas, strategies and tactics that exist. I plan to add more theory tomorrow / this week. Hopefully we can get to these previously mentioned 1 paragraph pages that provide minimal help. I can take care of the yugoslav lines! Revision should be made to the main Sicilian page to limit redundant information now that we have an informational B77 page to link to.What is the feeling of providing an illustrative game ? are we keeping the pages to strict variation and strategy or are we allowing an example to further the readers understanding ? i'm new to wikipedia editing but not to chess, please help me with any criticism so that i may better convey my chess knowledge Matthew_Yeager (talk). 1:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just re-wrote King's Indian Defence almost completely. so much more information is added and variations. i was going to do this to the Sicilian page, but apparently controversy exists. PLEASE check out the two pages i re-wrote and let me know what you guys think! Are many other people contributing to rewriting these pages and adding more detail to these one paragraph articles ? please let me know whats going on and where to focus. thank you for your time, hopefully i'll get some feedback. Matthew Yeager 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I like your additions to the KID, so personally I say, "thanks, more please". If you want to improve the Sicilian Defence article I think you can go ahead. Mediation has been requested (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sicilian Defence), but even if accepted I don't think it's likely to result in any changes to the article. The "controversy" is just one unsatisfied person who really doesn't have anything nice to say about any chess content on Wikipedia at all. On the other hand, if you don't enjoy the endless, mind-numbing tedium of having one individual who doesn't know anything about chess but who will not stop dictating to everyone else how they must write chess articles and what they are not permitted to include, you may want to wait a while. Quale 06:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the previous posts here, as i was told that many members fly right by the top and go straight to new things at the bottom. My name is Matthew and I hope to greatly contribute to the wikichessproject! I have read previously posts indicating that some articles were short and merely contained moves with no explanation. I have gone through and as noted above, rewrote 2 so far. I know a great deal in areas of chess, but I am new to wiki. From this, I would love some feedback on what needs changed, enhanced, whatever you got! More references are coming for both pages, I am going through some books I own and will be searching some sites for reliable incite. I want to become a better writer here and be able to convey my knowledge of chess to others. Thank you for your time Matthew Yeager 06:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The largest problem with the condition of the chess articles in general we have is that many of the chess articles are old, from an era when it was more common to look the other way when it came to citing sources. The content is still valid, but sources are still needed. Help in sourcing the articles we have would be really appreciated. I am impressed with your enthusiasm for working with the chess articles! Hope you enjoy it, and I look forward to seeing more of your contributions. Your recent contributions are great, thanks! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. Thanks for the work you done on those two articles. I personally like what you have done there, but there are problems. I think most of the problems arise from you saying things like "I want to become a better writer here and be able to convey my knowledge of chess to others" - you are missing a key point about Wikipedia, which is to be able to write well about the knowledge of other people. Your knowledge of chess may be good, but you need to be able to back up what you say by referring to reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:ATT), not by writing about what you "know" (regardless of whether it is correct or not). This is sometimes a hard lesson to learn, but looking at those two articles, I see problems with phrases like (for King's Indian Defence): "Until the mid-1930s, it was generally regarded as highly suspect" (said by who, and regarded as suspect by who?); "helped to make the defence much more respected and popular" (respected by who, popular with who?); "9.b4 used to put top players off playing this line" (used to? When? Which top players?); "Joe Gallagher, in Play the King's Indian, has recommended" (needs a date - in 10 years time, or maybe even next year, this will be out-of-date); "Statistically, after 7...Na6 White scores 57 percent out of 1600 games, which is not bad at all!" (the 'verdict' and exclamation mark is over the top - just give the statistic, a date, a source, and if you must give n opinion, credit it to someone - preferably a strong grandmaster or opening theory specialist). Similarly, for Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 9.Bc4: "Black will typically counterattack on the queenside"; "transition from one variation to another results in tactical loses if accurate play isn't observed" - are examples of unencyclopedic writing.

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and readers shouldn't expect to find detailed game strategy here. My opinion is that strategy should be kept to a bare minimum of the opening moves and variations, plus carefully selected (for balance) and dated (to avoid recentism) opinions from authors of chess books on opening theory, with the bulk of chess articles concentrating on chess history (both from the past and more recent "news" type of history). Carcharoth 11:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge articles

OK, I've taken into account the comments above. here's the suggested merged irregular openings article, with diagrams and with the more notable opening keeping their own page. And here's a suggestion for merging the individual Grunfeld articles. Comments? EliminatorJR Talk 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

About Grunfeld, the Mos (I think) says that you should have some text above the first section. So something like the first sentence and the first sentence of the third paragraph needs to be moved above the first section and the first section can be renamed "History". The remaining sentence of the third paragraph can be rephrased and moved down to the section on the Exchange variation. Bubba73 (talk), 15:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Irregular openings: I like this, with the idea that if openings get large enough they will get their own article. I think that Parham Attack is big enough to stand on its own, and there is already a Parham Attack article with more information. Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The same thing may apply to Polish Defense/Sokolsky Opening. The article probably has enough to stand on its own, but this could be a close call. Scratch that - I thought that Polish and Sokolsky were the same. Bubba73 (talk), 15:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Alapin's Opening has its own article that seems to have more info than your new article. It may be able to stand on its own. There may be others like this. Bubba73 (talk), 15:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Saragossa Opening can stand on its own. We need to go through all of these, and check. Bubba73 (talk), 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You need descriptions for the articles which link to main article. Questions as to whether or not any article should have a sub-article are another matter, but a bare link is a bad way to handle it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose merging articles on irregular openings. Reasons against include the fact noted by Sjakkalle several days ago that the irregular openings have nothing in common except that most of them are uncommon. I also don't like the patchwork appearance of summary style articles in which some openings are broken out into separate articles and others get brief mention inside an irregular openings franken page (pasted together out of many dissimilar separate pages). The current Irregular openings page treats the openings uniformly and is close to perfection in my opinion. Strong support merging variations and subvariations into the parent opening. On the other hand, I think summary style is ideal for treating important variations of a single opening. For the Grünfeld, it makes sense to put its variations together and only split them out when a section becomes too large. FrozenPurpleCube hasn't expressed nearly as much concern over the number of chess opening pages as he has dislike for the content of the pages themselves. In my view, merging a few pages on irregular openings isn't likely to make Manticore much happier and will make chess openings coverage on Wikipedia worse. Merging variations and subvariations into the parent pages will make Wikipedia better for everyone. Quale 17:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't suggesting this out of any desire to make FrozenPurpleCube happier - I genuinely think the number of opening stubs is too large and was looking at ways to reduce them. It looks like the consensus is to go with single opening merges rather than this method, which is fine. EliminatorJR Talk 22:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wise, because it is my opinion that making FrozenPurpleCube happier would require make the chess opening pages worse. I don't actually think there are too many chess opening stubs, with the exception of the large number of subvariation pages that were created some months ago for linkspam purposes as has been repeatedly noted here (even long before the current dust up). In general I find the goal of reducing the number of articles to be somewhat suspect in itself. If you look at Amar Opening, I think the standalone article is much better than the cut-down section in ICOD#Amar Opening. I don't really consider the Amar Opening article to be a stub. The page probably is not capable of great expansion, but I don't think there's any need for it. It's a short, complete, self-contained explanation of the most important information about this minor opening. Not every page should be as long as Ruy Lopez. (In fact Ruy Lopez probably shouldn't be as long as Ruy Lopez.) I think that Wikipedia could easily have 200 or more good chess opening pages, but they should be grown primarily from the top down to provide a solid foundation. Just glancing at MCO-14, I think Wikipedia should have a page on every opening mentioned in the table of contents (I think we have most or all of these now), and actually I see no reason Wikipedia couldn't have a good article on many of the entries in the substantially longer index. Quale 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It looks like consensus is against the Irregular Openings merge, with good arguments. As you say, the multiple sub-variant pages do need looking at though. EliminatorJR Talk 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


Once again, I must ask you to avoid personal attacks and comment on the content, not the contributor. Your continued attempts to attack me do nothing to resolve any of the issues involved in these pages, and instead create an atmosphere of hostility. This is not an appropriate behavior. FrozenPurpleCube 17:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Quale, I see your point about the irregular openings not having much in common. One more thing though, is that most all of them are in A00 (for what ever that is worth). So restating what I think is your opinion is that you support leaving the irregular openings as their own stub articles, but merging the sub-variation stubs back (unless they become large enough), right? Bubba73 (talk), 20:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. EliminatorJR merged Gedults Opening into Barnes Opening, an excellent merge because there's so little to say about Gedults on its own. It seems to me that Barnes, on the other hand, is a poor candidate for merge into an irregular openings page. For one thing, the redirect from Gedults Opening goes nicely to Barnes where the mention of Gedults isn't too hard to find. If Gedults instead redirected to a long Irregular opening page, that wouldn't be as nice. I think each of the 20 opening moves has enough intrinsic interest as part of the complete classification of all ways for White to start a game of chess that each one deserves a separate page. Beyond that, all openings treated distinctly by standard opening references (MCO, NCO, BCO) need a page. A variation of a top level opening should only get a separate page if there are enough WP:V verifiable things to say that it no longer fits well on the main page. I would expect a page for the Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, but probably not one for the Caro-Kann, Fantasy Variation. Anyway, that's just my opinion. If the majority of the chess contributors on Wikipedia want the irregular openings pages to be merged, I won't like it but I'll certainly accept it. Quale 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That looks pretty good to me. Bubba73 (talk), 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I support a merge, but currently there's too much information loss compared to the Grünfeld Defence page. I didn't go over them line by line, but GRUN doesn't mention The Game of the Century (chess), for instance. If a merge removes any information compared to the current pages, we should at least explain why things were left out (possibly on the talk page, since these explanations are typically too long for edit summaries). Quale 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'll look at it tomorrow when I've got a bit of time. EliminatorJR Talk 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The article is merged in now. I Included the Game of the Century, and also expanded the 'other variations' to include a couple of other lines. The only material from the original articles that has gone is where it would result in duplication. EliminatorJR Talk 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I think that both EliminatorJR and Quale are good editors, and I appreciate their contributions. I've had the problem of irregular openings in the back of my mind all day. I'm sort of on the fence, but I'm leaning in Quale's direction of keeping the individual articles for the irregular openings, even if they are stubs. There isn't anything inherently wrong with a stub, if it gives important information, as these do. On the other hand, I'm not completely satisfied with the current irregular chess openings. It is mostly a list of the openings, and says little otherwise. For instance, Chess opening#Unusual first moves for White has more to say about the irregular openings in general. I'd like a little more explanation like that in irregular chess openings. Bubba73 (talk), 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am with Quale and most others here. I think the irregular openings from the Anderssen Opening to the Amar Opening are too different and unrelated to each other to make merging a sensible option, it just reduces the number of articles for no other reason than reducing the number of articles and does little or nothing to provide improved context or readability. But the various stubs on opening variations are in almost all cases mergable, and makes the coverage easier to read when it's on one page about the opening instead spread on several variation articles with just one paragraph. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll start looking at merging the opening variations (when I've sorted out the Grunfeld - see above!). EliminatorJR Talk 18:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_3&oldid=1079068490"