Talk:Chess Opening Theory/Archive 1

Hi all
Hi all. My hope here is to have a wiki that will delve in to some of the opening lines with some explanation. I think this is different from the "Basic Openings" module -- I think it is at least an intermediate topic. While some sites exist that have "opening explorers," none are wikis.

I would hope that at each half move, experienced chess players could annotate the description and provide some insight into the postion -- perhaps leading readers to the idea of themes rather than memorization of moves. I would especially like to see annotations at those points in the lines where classic chess opening tomes simply stop and say something like "giving black good chances." Instead, it would be nice if there was a lively discussion about the line going forward. Some of the refuted lines aren't even discussed in the opening tomes -- even though their refutation is anything but obvious to the amateur. A good example of this is the Rousseau Gambit.

Finally, it is not my intention to replace the great opening articles on Wikipedia. Again, I'd like to see kibitzing at the various points in the opening lines.

ThreeE 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

hi there. Chi Sigma here, from Britain, rated 146 ECF (1980 ELO), sporadic Wikipedian. You're right, it would be great to create an opening explorer in wiki form, and I found this place while searching for help on how I'd go about doing exactly that. I think this could (should) be a big thing. I'll do what I can. Chi Sigma 13:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Important notice
The Chess wikibook had separate chapters called Basic Openings and Opening Theory. The Opening Theory module covered the same broad subject as Basic Openings but using a significantly different approach. While Basic Openings was a linear chapter, Opening Theory aimed to be an opening explorer along the lines of this web site. In addition, Basic Openings was... basic, while Opening Theory had a theoretically unlimited depth.

I have made the former Opening Theory chapter of the Chess wikibook into a separate wikibook, called 'Opening theory in chess'.

My reasons for doing this centre on the fact that the Chess wikibook is meant to a) reach 100% completion eventually and b) be something that a reader can get through from cover to cover and which will provide a working knowledge of the basics of chess. The Opening Theory chapter was inconsistent with this because:


 * Opening theory dwarfs the rest of chess literature. One needs only to look at the typical bookstall at a chess tournament to see this. It would take a long time and a lot of effort to create the definitive guide to chess openings, which would retard the completion of the Chess wikibook as a whole. Indeed, Chess is nearing completion, while Opening theory in chess is close to 0%.
 * The Opening Theory chapter was intended to be open-ended and constantly evolving in breadth and depth, like the Cookbook, with the result that Chess could never be 100% complete. Better, to my mind, to have one complete and readable book with a link to another constantly evolving one 'for further information'.
 * The concepts behind opening theory get complicated and potentially off-putting to someone who simply wants to know a bit about chess.

I believe this complies with Wikibooks' no-forking policy because:
 * The approaches used by the two books are completely different
 * The content itself differs in scope and depth
 * The minimal actual duplication of material is for the greater good of Wikibooks as I have explained above.

Chi Sigma 10:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting this notice both in the Chess Wikibook as well as on this discussion page. My first impression was that it should be included in the Chess Wikibook instead, but I see what you are suggesting.  My only concern is that this Wikibook doesn't seem to flow like a "book", at least to introduce some opening moves one at a time, but rather is more of an index into a bunch of "articles" about opening moves in Chess.  Such an index is necessary, but I'm not sure if it there could be some more organization with this Wikibook?


 * You are correct that the content of this Wikibook could completely overwhelm a general introduction to Chess, as the Chess wikibook can and ought to be. Good luck with this project, and I hope that it continues to progress.  --Rob Horning 08:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

More Progress Needed
More needs to be done with this wikibook. This would be a great asset to anyone interested in openings out there. Here is a website that has it's own opening explorer with some statistics like the most played and % wins for white and black and percentage for a draw. www.chessgames.com There is also kibitzing on the site which is very useful for some more info. They also have pages on just particular openings which also have kibitzing. Check it out, I would like to see this wikibook become much more extensive in the coming months. 128.6.175.75 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm new to wikibooks but have been editing on wikipedia for about a year. I've been studying chess more than 10 years though I'm not as active in the tournament scene. Anyway, I'm going to flesh out a number of lines--at least to give pages for such basic openings as the Queen's Gambit (until now, there were no pages in this wikibook covering the declined or accepted lines). For now I'm just cutting and pasting the basic page and editing to put links to wikipedia for named lines (such as Tarrasch Defense etc.). For now I'm not as interested in getting in-depth as I am at least giving the barest overview of the main lines; at the least, there should at least be red links listed for the main lines so people at least have the barest clue what the main options are.--JECompton 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

A few Questions on Making Pages in This Book
One first question: when should a named line link to wikipedia, and when should it link back into this wikibook?--JECompton 01:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * At one point I added many links to wikipedia but then I got taken to task for it. Basically WikiBooks is suppose to be self contained books, so links to wikipedia are discouraged. You can read more here Help:Wikibooks for Wikipedians. SunCreator (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A second: When should I put slashes at the end of moves? I notice some of the existing pages have them while others don't. It makes for some confusion with making the links, though I think the confusion is mine--as long as I understand the form here, I'll be happy.--JECompton 03:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. By looking around the 1.e4 pages, I see that my broken link must have had a different problem, and as long as I follow the 1.e4 pages format, I'll be fine.--JECompton 04:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd q: at the top of this module, it says one can navigate by ECO code. I don't see this anywhere. How is this implemented?--216.184.15.227 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would Chess Opening Theory/ECO index be it? --hagindaz 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would be it. Unfortunately, it only covers some of the 'A' volume openings--lots of work to be done still. Thanks again Hagindaz!--JECompton 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I started on B. The odd thing is, we're a little more than half done with A. --Anonymouse--nerd and proud of it (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it takes quite a bit of time to create it. So while it was stated no one got around to finishing it. SunCreator (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ideas
how about describing the main ideas of each opening, instead of just collecting theory? This would make it more a sort of textbook - has this been the intention? FairPhyllis 20:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion.
I would like to suggest if the ‘Chess’ Wikibook could be separated into three distinct levels, beginner, intermediate and advanced. This will allow for more abstract techniques to be included in a series of coherent chess text books. ‘Opening theory in chess’ could be included into intermediate and all levels could have a portal to allow accessibility. --Herraotic 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with this. Certain concepts are more advanced, but this sounds more like the framework of another wiki book on chess tactics and strategy which still is no easy task. I still would prefer an additional book of this nature. Even some better players would benefit from this as well as beginners.

--Chessnutz 18:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

About notation...
Do you note castling by 0-0 or O-O ???

Do you use the e.p. notation after a pawn captures en passant ???

Do you include moves evaluations like !, ?, !?, ?!, !! and ??

What are the positions evaluation we should use ? I've been using : +/- -/+ =/+ +/=, are there other ? How are they ordered ?

horyon 13:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Castling is O-O as in PGN. There are no ! and ?s in the page names, nor indications of check/checkmate, nor e.p. though these may be included in the main text and hyperlinks.

Position evaluations are optional. Stick with the Informator symbols: +- +/- +/= = =/+ -/+ -+ in that order. Chi Sigma 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Castling is written as O-O and O-O-O, for kingside and queenside castling respectively. Try to avoid !, ?, !? etc.


 * And evaluation of unclear? use &infin; or ~ (seen this ~ used on wikipedia) or not use at all? E5ricky 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Links to this wikibook in the wikipedia
I've remarqued that a few pages about chess in the wikipedia have links toward this wikibook, but often these links are incorrect (I've often seen 1.e4 instead of 1. e4 and Chess/Opening theory instead of Opening theory in chess). So maybe we should try to :
 * 1) check all the links and correct them when needed
 * 2) add links in all other pages about chess openings

This would increase the popularity of this wikibook.

The question is : should we only include a general link to this wikibook or should we link every move in a wikipedia page to the corresponding page in the wikibook ?

horyon 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all my fault, I'm afraid. I carved out Opening Theory into a separate wikibook, for reasons I've explained elsewhere on this page, and introduced a new scheme for naming pages to fix a specific technical problem.

The plan: Over a couple of weeks, I move all the existing pages to their new addresses, and then redirect all the links from Wikipedia.

What actually happened: Just when I'd made all the changes, I lost internet access for a long time. Thus leaving the Wikibook pretty well bollocksed up.

My apologies to everyone whose enjoyment of Wikibooks has suffered.

I intend to fix all the broken links some time soon, and then see if I can make some sort of dent in the enormous job of writing the content.

In answer to horyon: For sure, we should link from Wikipedia to the exact page in this Wikibook - it's added functionality at almost no cost in effort, no? Chi Sigma 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress
Hi all. It's been about 2 years since I have had a chance to revisit this work. I am impressed by some of the progress various authors have made. I hope to be able to indulge my chess affection some again soon and hope to begin contributing again.ThreeE 02:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Theory Table on Initial position
This table looks poor (just a long list(space padded) of first move and I don't think a theory table is going to be suitable on this page. Maybe extend the quick menu or something similiar. E5ricky 23:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's sorted out now E5ricky 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
Not sure if this is really the place to ask, but is there a page for the Catalan? I couldn't find it under the list on the d4 page. Sorry to bother if there isn't. :| 207.30.253.250 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not covered yet. Will be with the move g3 here Opening_theory_in_chess/1._d4/1...Nf6/2._c4/2...e6 ChessCreator (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)