Talk:Chess middlegame

Other uses

This article focusses solely on Chess, whereas "middlegame" is a generic term. I'm quite sure there is a lot of literature on the Diplomacy middlegame, for instance. Wouter Lievens 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

This article needs a total rewrite. Quale 08:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree (along with Chess strategy and Chess tactics). These three are some of the most important ones and they all need a great deal of improvelent, IMO. Bubba73 (talk), 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this one more than the other two. Bubba73 (talk), 04:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible definition

I could suggest a few alterations, however I haven't enough confidence in my ability to rewrite things. I'd certainly suggest that the definition of a "middlegame" is every move between the first move played after a "book" opening, and the last move played before a defined endgame scenario. So in an open Sicilian a move such as "5 .. g6" would be the beginning of the middlegame. And then whatever move led to a p+r or p+b endgame (for example), be the end of the middlegame. Not the clearest wording I know, but someone with better encyclopedic verbiage should be able to make it sound ok. It's very similar to what is currently there, but perhaps a concrete example would help eliminate vagueness. VonBlade 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good idea, but the endgame doesn't always have a definite starting point, see Endgame#When does the endgame begin?. Also, the end of the opening is a bit probamatic if it gets out of the book early and the next few moves are played according to opening principles rather than middlegame principles. Bubba73 (talk), 20:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Computers Wrong

"Chess computers are widely considered to be weakest (as compared to the other sections of the game) in the middlegame." This is false. Computers are considered weakest at strategy and long-range play, but this has nothing to do with the middlegame. Computers actually are considered weakest at endgames, where a human can see long-range patterns than a computer cannot calculate deeply enough. Also, computers are strongest at tactics, which are at their peak in the middlegame. Whoever wrote this has no idea what he is talking about. Someone who cares can correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.22 (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

If this well-written article has a fault, it is the inadequate sources. Fine's book is rather lightweight and out of date; and Heisman is not really a strong enough player to be a source. What sources would improve it? Well, some of those in the further reading, such as Euwe, Pachman, Watson and Silman for a start. Some of the articles in the Dvoretsky series were real eye-openers at the time.

I think our faith in generalisations has waned, and situations are looked at more for their specifics. Watson does a very good job of illustrating the problems of old-fashioned generalisations about how to play middlegames. However, if one must have general rules (and weaker players do like them) then the article does a fair job in presenting them. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is sources as much as the article is just extremely underdeveloped and very short for such a large subject. There are only two cites, which would be a bigger problem if the article actually said something more. We really should take a historical view, describing how middlegame theory has evolved from Steinitz through Nimzowitsch to the current day. (The superbly written first-move advantage in chess is an example of the kind of treatment that this subject deserves.) I'd like to help improve the article, but my thinking after looking again at Watson is that it's a large task. It might be easier to work on related articles on specific middlegame topics first, such as pawn structure, isolated pawn, exchange sacrifice, weak square complex, bishop versus knight, etc. Once those were filled out more this article could be improved. Quale (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It needs a lot of development. A couple of years ago I was thinking about taking it on, but there is a lot to do and the topic isn't easy to organize and write about. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Macdonald-Ross concerning Heisman. Heisman is a renowned chess coach, and that reputation has given him separate columns on two reasonably prestigious websites; chess.fm (ICC) and the Chess Cafe. His playing strength is probably not of a level where he would be a great enough expert on opening theory (which is a rather advanced topic) to write a treatise on the latest developments in the Ruy Lopez (I would turn to IMs or GMs for that), but for evaluating the basic aspects of gameplay, he is reliable enough by a wide margin, and his columns explain things at a more basic level than what is seen in most chess literature. For a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, having relatively easy sources is a big advantage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I said nothing against Heisman as a coach. However, it seems perverse to quote Heisman on three middlegame topics which were well discussed by Nimzovich! Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. However there is a benefit to using more recent references than Nimzo. Someone reading the article may want to read the reference, and modern books are more accessible than Nimzo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Engl 221 Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 22 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Bert Dinkles.

— Assignment last updated by TheRevenantTwo (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)