Jump to content

Category talk:Chess openings

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

Understanding Chess Openings

[edit]

Can I suggest that some kind of animated graphical representation of the openings is provided? A simple flash representation of most of these openings should only take a few kb. Perhaps someone suitably skilled in Flash stuff could put forwards a common style to be adopted? (Put the template on your talk page or something). Emyr42 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistation

[edit]

We should establish a capitalization guideline. I've noticed that words like Gambit in names of openings are always capitalized, but sometimes Opening is not. What should be the standard? Then we can rename any page that doesn't conform to the agreed style.--Sonjaaa 20:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think names of openings, defenses, variations, gambits, etc. should be capitalized, e.g. Bird's Opening, Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation, King's Gambit. But the generic word should be lower case as in the previous sentence. That seems to be by far the most common usaege, and <soapbox> I think it's also proper English. The two words "Sicilian Defense" form a proper noun together. You would not capitalize both words in the example "Russian players", since "players" is a common noun modified by the proper adjective "Russian" </soapbox>. So go for it, Sonjaaa! Sim man 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]

Taking a look at the contents of this category, it seems a lot of the pages are unreferenced, game guides, or just plain too technical. As such, they may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Not all of them, I respect that there is real-world context to quite a few of the openings, but I think tihs category as a whole needs some review and attention. It's not a horrible problem, so I'm not going to go on an AFD spree or anything, but I do want this to be looked at, not just left the way it is. FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • more discussion at WT:CHESS#WP:NOT not being followed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, someone who is not very knowledgeable about chess is not equipped to determine the merit of these pages. In particular, familiarity with algebraic chess notation is required to understand a page on a chess opening, just as elementary algebra is required to understand calculus. You do identify the only common failing of pages in this category—lack sources. This problem is endemic to Wikipedia as a whole, but fortunately it is easily remedied for these pages, as there are many WP:RS sources for chess openings. See King's Indian Attack for the problem in reverse—it has far too many sources listed as references, as the list should include only sources actually used in the article, with preference given to sources in English. In case you are wondering, the KIA is a well-known opening but not a popular one, and the sources available for a truly popular opening such as the Sicilian Defence and its subvariations number in the hundreds or thousands. There is some disagreement over whether it was wise to create dozens of stub articles on subvariations rather than putting that material in the page with the main opening. Personally I think some merging would be in order, and that information on a subvariation should start in the parent page and only be broken out into a separate page when the parent becomes too large. Exceptions should be made in cases when the subvariation is particularly well-known on its own, for example Fried Liver Attack. 24.177.112.146 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That you claim understanding algebraic chess notation is required to understand a page on a chess opening actually increases the doubt I have as to the value of these pages. That kind of specific use of technical terms is not really a good thing. Besides, while sources are a problem for a lot of these articles, the real root of the problem is slightly different. Sources are a minor concern to me, regardless of the subject, whether it be chess or a television show. The real question is "Are these pages appropriate for Wikipedia?" As you can find at WP:NOT#IINFO, Wikipedia isn't a collection of any and all information everywhere. If it isn't possible to find some real world content whatsoever to relate any given chess opening to, then it might be worth considering not having an article on it, no matter how many sources you can find. If you want to have information on every given chess opening, I'd suggest setting up something on www.wikibooks.org instead. Or a Chess Wiki. To put it another way, while an article on the Orient Express is fine, not every given train route needs an article, even though most can easily be documented. Taking your examples, I see only one tiny mention in KIA about real world content, information which could just as easily be put on the page of Bobby Fischer. (As for Glenn Baumann, exactly why is he of consequence? What's the point of mentioning him? I suspect that might be a vanity edit, given that the only such person I can find was here, but if I'm wrong fix the page. (Glenn Baumann is a chess coach and player; his credentials may be seen at www.OKChess.net) The page itself is highly technical, so I tagged it as such, and illustrates the problem I have with this category. The Sicilian Defence covers real world content much more effectively, though I think it too is in need of improvement to broaden its accessibility. And no, I don't see that Fried Liver Attack warrants its own article. Make it a redirect and cover it in Two Knights Defense. FrozenPurpleCube 05:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I simply disagree with you on nearly every point. I claim that elementary algebra is required to understand differential (infinitesimal)—does that increase your doubt that Wikipedia should include articles on differential calculus? I'm familiar with WP:NOT, and in my view none of its prohibitions apply to the articles on chess openings. I don't see the phrase "real world content" in WP:NOT, so I don't see what relevance it has, nor do I even understand what it's supposed to mean in this context. The chess opening has been studied for over 400 years, and is well documented in thousands books and magazine articles, as well as other media including video. That level of coverage in secondary sources is not available for any random generic train route, so I don't find that comparison convincing. It is my opinion that both the article and the reader have responsibilities. An article on a technical subject has the responsibility to include an explanation that is as simple as possible, but no simpler. The reader of an article on a technical subject has the responsibility to pick up as much background as she needs to get what she requires from the field she is studying. Notice that this is not a requirement that the reader have a PhD in the subject at hand. The reader is only required to learn as much of the basics as is required to get what she wants out of the article. Do you expect to understand all of singular value decomposition without knowing any linear algebra? I submit that satisfying your complaint would require removing all technical articles such as Ewald summation. This is just a bad idea, and to me it indicates that your notation of "too technical" is flawed. If you want to get the most out of most chess subjects there is required background, but it is quite modest compared to most subjects: rules of chess and algebraic chess notation cover almost everything you need. (This is required background even for chess biographies if you are serious about the subject.) In this case I don't think any of the chess opening articles are technical anyway. The chess content of Wikipedia is really quite elementary, and all of it is easily within the grasp of an interested 12 year old. I do think that more of the chess opening pages should discuss the history and evolution of the openings, and some of this content would not require very much chess knowledge to understand at a basic level. I don't expect to change your mind about this and that's OK. Differences of opinion are natural and healthy. I responded because I thought your concerns deserved a reply and shouldn't simply be ignored. I suspect that the majority of the contributers to Category:Chess articles are busy improving articles rather than paying much attention to this disagreement. Thanks for your improvement of the King's Indian Attack article. The Baumann mention was indeed vanity inserted by an anon. 24.177.112.146 02:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see, do any of the articles on differential calculus constitute nothing more than a math problem, with no real world relationship? If so, then yes, they need to be examined for their content. If any of them contain too much in the way of technical content, then they need to be examined for how to broaden the audience they can reach. In fact, I would agree most of them do need to be improved just as much, or more than these articles. And sorry, reading neither rules of chess nor algebraic chess notation would change my opinions of these pages. These pages are still being written at a level that is far too high. They are being too casually included, without any attempt at an examination of their inclusion, or even an attempt at setting up a criteria for inclusion. Frankly, I'd say most of them are probably useless for Wikipedia. If you think that there are questions regarding the subject of mathmatics articles being similarily treated, then I won't disagree. This page Fractional differential equation for example, is near useless right now. So is this one. Hybrid automaton. I do think most people will handwave over various things in science and math without really looking at them for their inclusion value. So far as it goees, I think Differential equation could be improved. I think many of the pages in Category:Differential equations could be improved, just like these pages should either be improved or removed. But regardless of what happens there, these pages do need work. They do need improvement. Not just some idiot adding in every opening code from the ECO. I suggest looking for real-world content because it does provide some context to the importance of the chess opening. Knowing the history of it, knowing what persons have used it, is much better than a page that simply says this is the moves, this is why it's done, blah, blah, blah. That's not bad information, but for Wikipedia? Maybe not. Maybe it'd be worth putting that on some Chess specific wiki. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if the members of WP:CHESS are ignoring this issue, that's quite unfortunate. I don't expect immediate action, but a thoughtless continuation of something without even an attempt at examining what's being done, or seeking the wider consensus? It's a bad thing. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I note on Talk:Singular value decomposition that at least one person has complained about that page being too complex. I agree with them in general, and I think that that page absolutely needs to be looked at. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Replace "useless for Wikipedia" with "useless for someone too lazy to learn the rules of chess", and I would agree. Just because you don't understand a particular chess or mathematics page doesn't automatically mean the page too technical. Given the examples in this discussion, I suspect the most likely cause would be deficient background in the subject matter, and you are clearly unwilling to expend even the slightest effort to fill the gaps in your preparation. I find your views of what is encyclopedic hopelessly wrong and out of step with the Wikipedia community as a whole which rejects any notion of a "real world relationship" inclusion criterion. (I still don't know what "real world relationship" is supposed to mean. I challenged you and continue to challenge you to find any such "real world" provision in any Wikipedia guideline.) Feel free to try to convince other community members that "real world relationship" is a desirable (even if impossibly ill-defined) inclusion criterion, but I strongly suspect you will fail. Although I agree that adding articles for every ECO code is a bad idea, thanks for calling people who create articles on chess subjects idiots. This is a waste of time. I should simply have ignored your wildly off target complaints as it appears everyone else did. 24.177.112.146 05:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, instead of making this discussion about me, I suggest you concentrate on the subject instead. And just so you know, I do not consider people who make articles on chess idiots, and I don't even consider the people who made most of the articles in this category idiots. Mistaken, perhaps, but not idiots. However, I do consider anybody who mass-scripts article creation an idiot though, whatever the subject might be. That's bad practice. FrozenPurpleCube 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, Wikipedia is concerned about real world relationships, it's a common reason for articles to be deleted or merged. There's at least a dozen articles on AfD right now that I know fit that criteria from items in Video games to episodes of television shows. FrozenPurpleCube 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
amazing that so many people in this community defend the positions of the anon (silence equals consent) and yet i wonder ho many of them have ever participated in an AFD and argued that something is cruft. Your argument is basically the pokemon defense. When i brought up the comparison at the project page i was quickly told that chess is not pokemon. True, apples are not oranges, but they are both fruit. One is not simply superior because you can make pie and cider out of it. There exists a wealth of strategy information, and pokemon is just as complex as chess for those interested in learning the mechanics. However, it is a point of contention when somebody would like to explain how Snorlax is often used with Rest and Belly Drum, or as a physical sweeper. I am only in partial agreement with Manticore (love the name btw) because i somewhat believe in your idea that anything that is so discussed on an important notable topic is something that should also be included. But you are wrong to say that readers should simply become more learned right away. Many of the moves and diagram referrals could be easily explained using plain english, but instead you resort to jargon that is completely incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the terminology (well, that's the definition of jargon anyways, isn't it?). The onus is not on the reader, but the contributor. Unless of course you think my above example regarding Snorlax is perfectly appropriate for wikipedia, including the amount of explanation i gave (which was almost nil), in which case i think you should start becoming involved in more video game-related discussions. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the best place to share your thoughts on those pages is the actually discussion page yourself. It would also help to explain the reasoning for any course of action you suggest. Simply saying "Danish Gambit must not be deleted" offers little in the way of explanation as to why it should be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of piling on? It doesn't look to me like the AFD is going all that well for you. I don't think you're going to get any of the articles you nominated deleted, and it doesn't even look like there's very much support for a merge, even though I think that would be appropriate for some of them. Right now it looks like the comments run about 10–0 against you, and a speedy keep might be appropriate. 24.177.112.146 03:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe you're mistaken. Several of the people commenting have only said they don't like the number of articles involved, others have supported the deletion of several articles. Beyond that, AfD's are not a vote, and admins need to take into account more than numbers, but the substance of the arguments, which in several cases doesn't actually exist. Thus while I certainly concur that the discussion is troubled, I don't think there's a true consensus developed, but rather an unfortunate mess. That happens sometimes. But then, I was concerned several months ago when I first noticed this issue that any attempt to resolve it would be an ugly affair.
In any case, if you do believe there are pages that should be merged, or other action, you should comment on the AFD page, or make the edits to the page yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

[edit]

While I do not believe deleting these opening articles 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. Clemenz Opening
  7. Desprez Opening
  8. Dunst Opening
  9. Durkin Opening
  10. Englund Gambit
  11. Fred Defence
  12. Grob's Attack (might be notable enough to have its own page?)
  13. Kangaroo Defense
  14. Napoleon Opening
  15. Parham Attack
  16. Polish Defense
  17. Portuguese Opening
  18. Saragossa Opening
  19. Sokolsky Opening
  20. St. George Defense
  21. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well this proposal would remove 21 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 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging any of the listed openings. Many of them are not subvariations of any other opening, and so deserve an individual article on that basis alone. As for the others, I don't see any advantage in merging them at all. There are opening articles that should be merged (or rather probably should never have been created), but these aren't them. 24.177.112.146 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you might wish to suggest some candidates for merger? It's all well and good to say "but there are other pages" but it's not as helpful as actually identifying some of them. FrozenPurpleCube 07:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You're going to disagree with this, but opening articles that I think belong as stand alone articles include 1) every first move for White (20 openings) and 2) all the named openings at the level where they are considered individual openings in the chess literature. I think chess opening coverage should be developed from the top down, starting with Chess opening (in pretty good shape), through all 20 opening moves, through all named openings normally treated independently in the chess literature. This means that we'd start with chess opening and proceed to Sicilian Defence, one of the pillars of chess opening praxis. Next, some of the most important variations like the Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation can get pages when they no longer fit well in the main opening article. This is as far as I think it should usually go, and I don't think that the chess opening coverage Wikipedia has at present should require many articles at the subvariation level, as Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O, etc. This in fact has been the general practice, although some months ago many articles at the subvariation (and subsub- and subsubsubvariation) level were added as a means to create many external links to a particular chess website. You have already nominated one of these pages on AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav attack, 10.O-O-O, an action that I think is reasonable. After a quick scan through the chess opening category, these are the articles that I think probably should be merged. (It was a quick look, so I may have made some mistakes.)

24.177.112.146 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defense vs. Defence

[edit]

It looks like there is an inconsistency in how the various defenses in this category are spelled. I think "defense" is more standard, and is used elsewhere in Wikipedia. Should these pages be standardized? Madbehemoth 06:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subcats

[edit]

There's an obvious lack of subcategorization here. Seems a poor choice. Most chess opening books do lots of categorization. – ishwar  (speak) 20:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Chess_openings&oldid=1249256694"