Talk:Chess Opening Theory
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
|
Shortcut: WB:CHESS |
|||
| Navigation Menu | |||
| Project Page | talk | ||
| Index of chess topics | edits | talk | |
| Chess | edits | talk | |
| Chess Opening Theory | edits | talk | |
| Chess templates | talk | ||
| Assessment | talk | ||
 |
This module is within the scope of Wikibooks:Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikibooks' coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This module is rated Top-importance on the importance scale and B-class on the quality scale. |
Archives: 1
Contents |
[edit] Co-ordination
Issues affecting the whole book(not just the root page), please discuss on the Opening theory organisation page. Have moved some of existing discussion there. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Opening_theory_in_chess/Organization
[edit] Thanks
I would just like to say that I am extremely grateful for these pages. I can't afford any chess books (I don't get allowance or get paid for any chores by my parents) so the only resource I have is the internet through the library. I don't know how many people have thanked you all for taking the trouble to post this information up, but I'd like to just be another person to tell you that I've been reading all of this! I just hope that some wiki mod doesn't show up and delete the pages saying it's too much information, because I've seen articles cut down a lot because of it. Anyway, you guys can just delete this after a bit, but I just wanted to give a thank you because this is the best!
- Check out the chess articles in www.Wikipedia.org - I think there is much more over there. Bubba73 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Writing style & content (using 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 as an example)
Consider, please, the difference between:
- 3. Bb5 is the most played. White puts pressure on the knight defending the pawn. While this is indeed White's best hope of an enduring attack, its aggressive appearance is misleading; the positions that result if Black defends properly require almost infinite patience from White.
- 3. Bc4 is a little more forthright and probably a better bet for beginners, provided the game does not subsequently head towards the Steve Davis Position.
- 3. d4 is aggressive. The center will completely collapse in a few moves, leading to a wide open game.
- 3. Nc3 is the dullest of the mainstream moves, not recommended for beginners if said beginners are to cultivate any interest in chess. Unless they are undead beginners, in which case they are entitled to play the (dubious but really fun) Halloween Gambit on move 4.
- 3. c3 is the Ponz(iani), a has-been. d4 doesn't need this preparation, and the b1-knight is unhappy at losing custody of c3 while Black's knight is still free to come to f6.
and:
- 3. Bb5 brings the game into the Ruy Lopez or the Spanish Game. White puts pressure on the knight defending the pawn.
- 3. Bc4 is quieter. Instead of attacking the knight, White chooses to target the weak f7 pawn.
- 3. d4 is aggressive. Subsequent play may result in a very open game.
- 3. Nc3 is the quietest continuation possible.
- 3. c3 opens the white diagonal for the queen, allows for an eventual d4 pawn push, in addition to controlling d4 and b4 (possible plants by the black knight) at the expense of hemming in the knight.
The former was turned into the latter by user Tourdeforcex, with the comment: "restoration of page: removal of unnecessary, obtuse, and fallacious statements"
1) Wikibooks is unnecessary, as is the universe 2) Chess is obtuse 3) If I write something fallacious, tell me so on the talk page and we'll come to a consensus, but I fail to see any fallacy that has been corrected in the new version. (On the contrary, Bc4 is way sharper than Bb5, and there are a great many quieter continuations than Nc3 - a3, for example.)
Regarding the style: what are we trying to make here, people? An online version of ECO? A reorganisation of Wikipedia's opening material into opening explorer format? Books, and by extension Wikibooks, are supposed to get you interested in the thing you're reading about. The fact that 90% of chess books are full of the same half-assed pedestrian prose as in Exhibit B above doesn't make it any more desirable. Look at the single comment on the page's discussion page:
"I was going to revert the verbiage -- but I actually like it! "Unless they are undead beginners,..." I love it. Adds character. Much better than Nunn's. ThreeE 02:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)"
And you can't have a noun 'at the expense of' a verb.
Another bugbear: if one move is good and another is crap, say so, using exaggeration, hyperbole and general colourful language as necessary to make your point. Don't be like an Amazon reviewer who writes only 'balanced' reviews and gives everything three stars, stand up to modern civilisation and make some value judgements! The kind of player who would actually benefit from having "3. c3 opens the white diagonal for the queen" pointed out to them is the kind of player who needs guidance in their choice of move, of which there is none in Exhibit B. Not even a Wikipedia-style "Kasparov tends to play this rather than this, so draw your own conclusions".
On a related note, don't state the obvious just to fill space. For example, rather than "3. c3 allows for an eventual d4 push", write "d4 doesn't need this preparation" - or, if it does: "d4 will be a stronger move if supported by a pawn". Assume that your reader has read the advice on the front page and isn't trying to learn chess by learning openings. You'll make them feel intelligent, which is good.
Consider the position at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Opening_theory_in_chess/1._e4/1...e5/2._Nf3/2...Nc6/3._Bb5/3...a6/4._Ba4/4...Nf6/5._O-O/5...Nxe4/6._d4/6...b5/7._Bb3/7...d5/8._dxe5/8...Be6 What I really want to see, which is a combination of my previous two points, is a book that tries to explain, in detail, with evidence, not just why 9. Nbd2 is a better move than 9. Qxd5 or 9. White Resigns, but why the best move is better than the second-best move.
Anyway, I'm in danger of forgetting what I wanted to say, which was that I've reinstated the "unnecessary, obtuse, and fallacious statements" and look forward to a healthy debate with anyone who objects to them. Chi Sigma (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Chi Sigma, I don't have much of an view on such things, if someone wants to update a page, then so be it. If you want to change it back to how it was then go for it. Pages are update quite infrequently so I'm reluctant to get involved in rights or wrongs and even if we did the other person doesn't return to put an alternative point of view. So for this reason I tend to change things I feel are incorrect but leave things that other people change. SunCreator (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How many moves deep are we trying to take this opening theory book? Also, what are we looking for in terms of citation versus violating fair use? Is it fair use to take movelists from existing chess books, but none of the description? Or is the movelist alone a copyright violation? 128.61.49.134 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned pages
The following pages are not linked to by this book and should be linked to if desired, marked with {{delete|reasoning}} if not desired, or merged into existing pages and marked with {{now merged|destination page}}.
- Opening theory in chess/1. d4/1...f5/2. Nf3/2...Nf6
- Opening theory in chess/1. e4/1...c6/2. d4/2...d5/3. Nc3/3...dxe4/4. Nxe4/4...Bf5/5.Bd3/5.Qxd4
- Opening theory in chess/1. g3/1...e5
- Opening theory in chess/1. h4/1...e5/2.a4
-- Adrignola talk contribs 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Added page links to 1 and 3, requested page deletion of 2 and 4. SunCreator (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
