Talk:Chess Opening Theory

Archives: 1

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

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)

Chess Opening Theory/ECO volume A/B/C...
Referring to the opening theory tables e.g. Chess Opening Theory/ECO volume B.

This is really awful to edit and is not particularly useful. Simple opening moves without links may be better option. Also the overall structure is not intuitive, putting the names/variations first then the moves leaves no allignment. Suggest

title

moves  : comment / variation

moves  : comment / variation

Pirc

1:e4 d6 2:d4 Nf6 :  Basic

1:e4 d6 2:d4 Nf6 3:Nc3 g6 4:Nf3 g7 :  Classical System

1:e4 d6 2:d4 Nf6 ....... : Whatever.

Positive Review
I actually really like this book so far, but found this part confusing: "Why is controlling the center a good idea? That comes under chess strategy, which is discussed in the Chess Wikibook." There is a link there, but the section of the book that talks about 'Why' is not called "Chess strategy", but instead under "Aims of an opening".

Good opening moves and bad opening moves
There is actually a very good reason why chess players open with center pawns. Here is a paper that shows that there are indeed good opening moves and bad opening moves. It describes a method of using engine analysis to compare the win probabilities of commonly used opening sequences. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1402/1402.6791.pdf 110.77.177.242 (discuss) 06:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 110.77.177.242 - your article contains the sentence "more recently chess engine programmer Vasik Rajlich carried out an extensive study on chess engines to support Fischer's call (Rajlich: Busting the King's Gambit, 2012)". I'm afraid Rajlich's article was an elaborate April Fools' Day joke - check the date! Chi Sigma (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Great stuff
Wow. Things have really progressed here since this book was created almost 10 years ago. Very nice. --ThreeE (discuss • contribs) 07:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Add links to Lichess analysis board
The Chess Opening Theory/Position template calculates the FEN code for a given chess position and displays it (see example on the right). We could use this to link to a position on Lichess, e.g. rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p5/3Pp3/5P2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR_w. This would be helpful for readers and editors as Lichess provides engine evaluation and an extensive opening database. Lichess is open-source and non-profit so I don't see a problem with linking to Lichess. What do you think? —Dexxor (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually came here to suggest this exact thing, not realising there was a link if you expand the hidden FEN information. Could this be made more clear, e.g. with a separate drop-down for the FEN and for the lichess analysis link? Or at least something with the word "lichess" in it? IMO this is the kind of thing which would be a perfect fit for a free (libre), online textbook, but I think most people (like me) wouldn't realise it exists. I'd try something myself, but I'm not so knowledgeable in arcane template wizardry. Endwise (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The moves in the infobox are now linked to Lichess, so you don't need to click the FEN anymore. Dexxor (discuss • contribs) 13:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice! Thanks. Endwise (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Prettify page titles
Page titles can get pretty long and ugly, see for example Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nc3/2...Nf6/3. Bc4/3...Nxe4/4. Qh5/4...Nd6/5. Bb3/5...Nc6/6. Nb5/6...g6/7. Qf3/7...f5/8. Qd5/8...Qe7/9. Nxc7/9...Kd8/10. Nxa8/10...b6. All those slashes and dots make the title even harder to read. There are technical reasons why the titles need to be in this format but there's nothing stopping us from changing the way the titles are presented to the reader.

I propose to convert the titles into PGN format (for display only). The above page would then still be reachable under that path but the title would be shown as "1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bc4 Nxe4 4. Qh5 Nd6 5. Bb3 Nc6 6. Nb5 g6 7. Qf3 f5 8. Qd5 Qe7 9. Nxc7 Kd8 10. Nxa8 b6". To achieve this without editing every single page, we can modify the Chess Opening Theory/Position template, which should be transcluded on every page, to use. The conversion into PGN can be done in two lines of Lua.

What do you think? —Dexxor (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please give an example please? D0arnmaz1e (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the proposed change on my sandbox. Compare its displayed title with the title of the real page. —Dexxor (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks awesome! However, you would have to teach me how to implement it when I create new pages. D0arnmaz1e (discuss • contribs) 11:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The idea is to integrate this into Template:Chess Opening Theory/Position so that you don't need to worry about it when creating pages. However, this would make it slightly harder to copy the page title and I honestly think that I doesn't look that great. It also hides away how this Wikibook works and might be confusing for new contributors. —Dexxor (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe have a "How-to" page for contributors? D0arnmaz1e (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Second paragraph in "King's Pawn Opening" section
I want to talk about the second paragraph in the "King's Pawn Opening" section, because I find certain parts rather questionable.

"You might hear people recommending 1. e4 because it controls the squares d5 and f5. Well, sort of, but that's a bit vague and abstract really."

What? How? What's so vague and abstract about the idea that the pawn could capture an enemy piece that enters its attack zone?

"Black could just take them away again by playing 1...e6 if they wanted to."

So what? Does that completely invalidate White's control of those squares and make it meaningless? White still has their pawn in the exact same place, attacking the exact same squares. And even if we assume that they meant to say that Black could prevent White from having full control of those squares, it doesn't really matter. After all, it was still worthwhile for White to fight for control of those squares, as it forced Black to react and spend a move doing something when they might have wanted to do something else.

These sentences don't make a whole lot of sense to me, so I am removing them from the page. ISaveNewspapers (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)