Talk:French Defence
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Kasparov win?
editRe: "Garry Kasparov experimented with it in the early 1990s, gaining a widely publicized victory over Nigel Short in 1991" on the Exchange variation. I have checked two on-line databases which give this game as a draw, ending in a black piece sac that secured a perpetual and thus spoilt Kasparov's almost total domination of the game, and virtual refutation of the 4. Nf3 Bg4 line of the Exchange (which otherwise score very well for black.) If I recall correctly from an old Informator I know longer have, this was from Tilburg 1991 and Kasparov then also used the Exchange to defeat Korchnoi in the same tournament, in a ...c5-c4 line for black. Using it twice in the same tournament probably got the publicity the author of this article is thinking; either that or both databases are wrong. Kasparov also uses this variation in simultaneous displays, incidentally. Anyway: it would be nice if someone with a good off-line database like Chessbase could confirm/clarify/change the 1991 reference. Tommy-Chivs 01:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct - I have removed the reference. youngvalter 06:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say Kasparov 'experimented' with the Exchange though. The reality was Kortchnoi, Salov and Short all played assymetric responses to the French Exchange - when weaker players tried to draw against them using it. Kasparov worked out what was wrong with these assymetric choices as a part of his preparation. The Salov Nc6, Bd6 plan can be met by Bb5 w c4; this results in a long forced sequence whereby white gets marginally better queenside pawns. The Short 4...Bg4 gets hit by 5.h3 Bh5 6.Qe2+ (threat Qb5+), forcing therefore 6...Qe7: Now after g4, black's kingside development is congested; white has a slight to clear plus as a result. V the Kortchnoi plan of c5, white's rapid development obliged c5-c4, when the d5 pawn is subject to long term-attack.
In short - Kasparov's 2.5-.5 from these three games (which should have been 3-0!) was the result of 'hit and run' preparation. Not experimentation.Tommy-Chivs 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
We need to add the Chigorin 1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 --Sonjaaa 12:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Kingston Defence?
editHi Gavin, welcome to WP. Are there any references to the "Kingston Defence"? I couldn't find anything in google. I see that you authored the now out of print "Crack the French: How To Play the Kingston Defence", ISBN 095141030X. I see that Amazon.co.uk has it. Quale 17:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Notation
editThis "standardized notation" of 1 e4 e6 (see history for most recent edit by Walter Chan), rather than 1.e4 e6, has to go. It is not standard, and is contrary to the notation (with the periods) used in every other chess article I've seen in Wikipedia. Krakatoa 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I put all the periods in. Krakatoa 18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- ThreeE raised this issue earlier with me, and this was my reply: "I've removed the periods because the standard used in printed chess material is to omit them (see books published by Everyman, Gambit, Batsford, Olms, etc.). Informant uses both a period and a space (excessive imo) and I think PGN does so as well. I personally prefer omitting them because I think the moves look "cleaner" that way." If periods are to be used, then there's still the issue of whether to write 1.e4 e6 or 1. e4 e6 - there needs to be more discussion on this. Walter Chan 01:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Convention here is to list lines like this: 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 Nc6
- For single White moves: 1.e4
- For single Black moves: 1...e6
- No particular reason, just the way things are done here and in most modern books I have. Like I said before, I'm not sure I care much, but anything else would result a departure from most pages here. Additionally, the chess opening theory wikibook does rely on this notation for various additional reasons.
- ThreeE 01:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- What ThreeE said. If you look at the chess articles on Wikipedia, the vast majority have one period and no space after each move, e.g. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4, etc. Krakatoa 14:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
re. Kingston Defence
editQuale -- thanks for doing the detective work on this. The book on the Kingston Defence, which analysed some of the games played in the 1980s and before, was officially published in 1989. If you look up the 1.e4 e6 2.d4 f5 sequence on Chess Base [1], the picture is reasonably clear. It's a defence that was mainly played in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but has since fallen into only occasional use. That's life -- many of us get married, have kids and, for brief periods, believe there are more important things than chess. The book is in need of an update, I admit. Strangely, while playing anonymously on the Web, I encounter people playing this defence against me, so the idea of 2 ...f5!? hasn't died. Gavin Wilson
re. Winawer
editI'm Yosef and I have a comment:
" In the diagrammed position, Black most frequently plays 6...Ne7. (The main alternative is 6...Qc7, which can simply transpose to main lines after 7.Qg4 Qc7 "
It seems wrong, Qc7 appears twicwice. In any case, I failed to understand the move sequence. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.177.242 (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it should have said 7.Qg4 Ne7. Thanks for pointing that out; I've made the change.Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
ECO codes
editAccording to the list, C00 is "1. e4 e6 without 2. d4" but there is no code for "1. e4 e6 2. d4 without 2... d5". Should C00 be revised to read "1. e4 e6 without 2. d4 d5" or is the latter more correctly included in one of the other codes? 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Armenian Variation/ Khalifman line
editWhat is referred to in this article as the Armenian Variation is also known as the Khalifman Line of the Winawer Variation. It is named after contemporary Russian grandmaster and former FIDE World Chess Champion Alexander Khalifman. Khalifman has used this line successfully in numerous modern grandmaster games, greatly repopularizing a dormant line. The proper name for an opening or defense variation or line is not necessarily its oldest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCBurke (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- There are no "proper names" of chess openings, as there's no authority with the power to decide them officially. 91.107.151.245 (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Barmann Variation, Labourdonnais
editSomeone added a paragraph on the so-called Barmann Variation under "Early deviations for Black". I moved it to "Early deviations for White" since it concerns an unusual White second move (Bb5) and tidied up the paragraph (move numbers instead of separating the moves with commas, tried to avoid the implication that the line given is the only possible play after 2. Bb5, removed the final suggested moves 7... Bc6 8. Na4? which is bad because of 8... Bxb5). Still, I haven't heard of this variation before. Is it sufficiently notable to merit inclusion?
Another variation that perhaps deserves coverage is the Labourdonnais, 2. f4. Almost certainly more respectable than the Barmann, but again, I'm not sure how truly notable it is. 91.107.151.245 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This Barmann Variation is complete nonsense. The line given was simply lifted from http://www.eudesign.com/chessops/ which as far as I can tell plucked it out of thin air. Why would White spend three tempi getting his bishop to a square on which Black can trade it off, for his own bad French bishop no less? Why, instead of carrying out this trade, would Black disturb his pawn chain to kick the knight on c3, when White can trade on d7 with check? And does White really have an irresistible attack after 7.Qf3 cxd3 8.Qxb7 Bxb5 9.Qxa8 Bc6 10.Qxa7 Bxg2? Because if she doesn't, she's hopelessly lost.
Google search for barmann variation - nothing Google search for barmann chess - nothing Chessgames.com has 5 games with Bb5, none of which proceed ...c6 Eric Schiller's execrable book Unorthodox Chess Openings calls it the Bird Invitation. Sure enough, Henry Bird apparently played one game with it. Black's second move was ...a6.
No, this is not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion.
*snip*
Chi Sigma (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bird used to play this. ChessGames.com shows three games by him (all wins) - see games 5-7. Incidentally, 2...Qg5 forces 3.Bf1, whereupon Black can repeat with 3...Qd8 if he wants, or play 3...d5 4.d4 Qd8, reaching the standard French position with two extra moves for each side. ChessGames.com shows 5 games with 2.Bb5 out of 28,209 Frenches. Looks non-notable to me too. Krakatoa (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, 2...Qg5 looks good too, thanks for the tip Krakatoa! For what it's worth I think White can try to argue that 3.Nc3 Qxg2 4.Qf3 Qxg3 5.Nxf3 gives her compensation, but maybe Black can go for a Hippo setup to catch up in development. Chi Sigma (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting idea, but I don't think White has any real compensation with the queens off the board. I think 5...c6 and 6...d5 is not bad, but I like your hippo idea (starting with, say, 5...a6, ...b5, ...Bb7, ...d6, ...Nd7) better. Black has an extra pawn and a super-solid position with no weaknesses. Krakatoa (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, 2...Qg5 looks good too, thanks for the tip Krakatoa! For what it's worth I think White can try to argue that 3.Nc3 Qxg2 4.Qf3 Qxg3 5.Nxf3 gives her compensation, but maybe Black can go for a Hippo setup to catch up in development. Chi Sigma (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"General themes" section
editSomeone moved the "general themes" section much further down the page and retitled it "Advance general themes", no doubt simply because the initial diagram of the pawn structure has a White pawn on e5. This is a case of being too literal. The Advance is pawn to e5 on the third move; the pawn reaching e5 at some stage is typical of all French variations except the Exchange, so the diagram and section were correct as they stood. Besides, this section was a very good overall discussion and very informative to readers who might otherwise be bewildered by the array of different variations; if it had been meant to be a section solely on the Advance, there is no way one variation, and not an especially important one at that, would merit such a large share of the page. I've put this back where it belongs now, hope it stays there. 91.107.182.206 (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Advance Variation
editAt the end of this section, there is "Black may continue 7...Nf5 to attack d4 or 7...Ng6 followed by ...f6 to attack e5.", however, at no point in the previous text is there mention of ..Ne7. Perhaps Bd7 should be Ne7 OR this is in reference to a line where white plays something other than a3 and Black plays 6..Ne7 instead of 6..f6 PeskyGnat (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Variations list
editThat huge list of every possible sequence of moves has got to go. It clutters things up (it accounts for more than half the article's length!) and adds nothing of value. I tried deleting it before but got reverted -- I suppose Wikipedia is automatically suspicious of large deletions. 91.105.31.176 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, June 18, 2010 - the removal of such a large amount of stuff by an anon IP address looks like vandalism to the bot. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Seconded. The ECO classification list belongs somewhere else, perhaps in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings article. --173.76.64.188 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, and took it out. I preserved it below. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Long French ECO list
editAnd here is the full list:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
C00 French: 1.e4 e6 |
Armenian Variation in the sidelines of Winawer correct?
editThe above mentioned line doesn't look very promising for white:
4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxb4 7.Qg4
Is this really theory? --KommX (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
An Early Alternative in the Exchange Variation
editIt's not mentioned in any opening manual as as far as I know but after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.ed Qxd5 has been played a lot on the Internet Chess Club. It doesn't seem have an obvious refutation and is, I believe, known as the London or Brixton Defence by it's fans. SmokeyTheCat 16:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"Non-notable" lines
editI noticed these recent revisions by Cobblet removing several "non-notable variations." Is there a standard for chess opening notability presented somewhere? An ECO classification? There are many articles which violate that. How commonly it is played? Amar Opening and Anderssen's Opening are just the first two in the openings category which stick out in violation of that criterion. A certain move number of variation? Seems there are a number of Sicilian et al. articles which talk about variations quite further into the game. Or is it completely subjective? There are indeed several I've never heard of or seen played that were removed, but Marshall Gambit even linked to its own Wikipedia page (well, a Wikipedia page anyway) and the 4 ...Qd5 line of the Rubinstein was even accompanied by a reference. I'll hold off adding anything back in because I simply don't know what the standard is. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- There isn't a standard but I'd like to write one - I just returned to the project after a long hiatus. I do intend to merge articles like Amar Opening into Irregular Defences at some point. In my opinion, notability should be measured by number of master-level games played in the variation and the amount of analysis published on it. The Katalymov Variation (i.e. 4...Qxd5 in the Rubinstein) is a borderline case: feel free to add it back in, but keep in mind it's only the fifth most popular move in that position, and the article makes no mention of the more common moves 4...Nf6 and 4...Be7. Most lines in the Secrets of Opening Surprises series are chosen specifically because they're rare - some have seen more action and become notable as a result, but many have not. Marshall Gambit links to a disambiguation page. Cobblet (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Milner-Barry Gambit
editMichael james campbell, plz stop reverting & discuss here. (Your add was misplaced, for starters. The rest can be subject to editing, but plz stop reverting.) --IHTS (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok explain.Michael james campbell (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- It was misplaced. I've added your content under Advance Variation section. The blunder-line you wanted to focus on, is so basic it was hard to find in any book! (I did manage to find it in Psakhis, The Complete French, 1992, p. 30.) The Milner-Barry Gambit wasn't represented in the article previously (now it is), it is a good add. It could be enhanced a little, but a diagram on the blunder line wasn't/isn't warranted (WP:UNDUE) (again, could hardly find it, not in ECOs or a dozen books on the French, finally found it in the Psakhis). Ok? --IHTS (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I have played it twice on chess.com and against players up to 1500 Glicko and it worked though after a few inbetweeny moves in one, I found it in Nigel Short on chess.Michael james campbell (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
French Defense exchange Monte Carlo variation
editNo mention of this variation even though it has seen use by top players (Maurice Ashley, Josh Waitzkin, Normunds Miezis). Is it ok to add info re the Monte Carlo exchange variation?--DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is mentioned, just not by that name, which is not used in most reference books on the French. Given that this variation appears in less than 1% of all games played in the French at GM level and has no bearing on the evaluation of the opening as a whole, an overview article on the entire French Defence does not need to do anything more than mention the existence of this move. Cobblet (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. There are way more obscure lines and traps that get fairly extensive coverage. The Monte Carlo exchange has been used by some MAJOR chess names as a weapon. Ashley got his first GM norm with it is one accomplishment I can think of off hand. Kasparov used it against Deep Fritz as well. This isn’t a perfect metaphor but since Morphy played less than 1% of chess games should he not be covered. Sure Morphy is a chess legend but games of great beauty and major importance have been played in the Monte Carlo. The 1% logic is just blockish. “And has no bearing on the evaluation of the opening as a whole.” This statement seems to be nothing but pure nonsense as every move into the game the possibilities expand at a wildly exponential rate. We have lines that go 10+ moves deep on here. c4 is the FOURTH move in the Monte Carlo exchange. Certainly the possibility it could be played has a bearing on the evaluation of the opening. The “no bearing” logic is sub sophomoric.--DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- So now we have to extensively cover every opening line that was used by any chess player to obtain a GM norm? Kasparov has never played Deep Fritz. Please cite reliable sources that demonstrate that games of "major importance" have been played after 4.c4. Virtually every book written on the French that says something to the effect that the Exchange Variation does not create problems for Black; in contrast, I do not know of a single one that suggests that 4.c4 might affect that evaluation in any way. If White wants to force an IQP position against the French there are ways to do it that pose Black more problems, not only in the Exchange but especially in the Tarrasch, as explained in Sam Collins's An Attacking Repertoire for White and Yevseev's Fighting the French; but even the system presented in those books has not discouraged anyone from playing the French as Black. You may want to educate yourself, change your user name, and stop writing in all caps before you undertake to call other people "sophomoric". Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2020
- I think you misread. I wrote sub sophomoric.--DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070735 - Kasparov beats Fritz in the third game of a four game match in a Monte Carlo by transposition. References to other games/works of note - http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2009/08/french-defense-monte-carlo-exchange.html http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2009/fr-ex-c4.htm Three time award winner of chess’ “best blog” award but it is more so the extensive resources that are referenced that is important. Another list of famous Monte Carlo games - https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1026239 (You may recognize some of the names - Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov, Tal, Spassky ... I probably left out a world champion or two but I can’t be bothered to check the whole list right now.) There is plenty more out there too but it probably isn’t worth the discussion as you refute nothing and add nothing to your argument other than requesting that I prove a negative (in so many words). I’m not sure how this whole wiki world works that well but I have certainly read about the problem of hyperactive, closed focus, only-say-no editors though. I suppose this simply isn’t worth my time. It’s strikingly problematic to me how from the outset, in your instinctual reaction (without what may even vaguely resemble a functional argument; better yet - an open minded stance towards dialogue on the subject), you responded so negatively. It would appear the critics are right. This will not be a fully rounded wealth of knowledge for the future sprouting forth from seeds of all sorts. But the loud and close minded few with “wiki tenure” win out over the ideologically open (but who also know when their argument falls on deaf, dumb, and dead ears) many. --DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Naturally it's the person who knows nothing besides the work of someone who's never broken USCF 2100 who thinks they're the one being open-minded. What you have failed to recognize from all the world champion games you're quoting is that not a single one of them actually played the Monte Carlo: rather they all chose opening lines that could only arise from a Monte Carlo move order if Black displayed no positional understanding whatsoever. Nobody who understands chess meets 4.c4 with 4...dxc4 5.Bxc4, handing White a free tempo to develop the bishop; or 4...Bd6 which both misplaces the bishop in the IQP position that White may force, and also invites c4-c5 at some point. Only an incompetent Black player would try to transpose to the 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 QGA line that Kasparov and Karpov played, or the 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 French Exchange main line that Carlsen played, when White chooses 4.c4 in the Exchange. Those players did not play the Monte Carlo; they played lines that are better than the Monte Carlo. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Never broken 2100 USCF. I am a NM. The fact that the author of the article (which has one numerous awards) hasn’t has no bearing on the collection of materials and sources he brought forth. Solid ad hominem though. Actually it was moronic and baseless but is no surprise considering the logical fallacies you have spewed forth without one ounce of consciousness so far. And did you see who the world champion’s were playing? Come on. At least do a tiny bit of research. And by your argument it DOES have a bearing on the evaluation as a whole. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonkeyPunchResin (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Go away. Your uncivil and insulting language proves that it's a waste of time to try to work with you, and Cobblet is correct on the chess aspects. Quale (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Who tf asked your opinion lol? You “go away.” He really tries to work with me? Did you read any of that? Oh you like the guy so let’s just go with his position on the matter even though he contradicts himself, is a firehouse of logical fallacies, and has not given one reason in compliance with Wikipedia’s standards as to why this shouldn’t be in the article ... “go away ... that’s my buddy ... he’s right” - no evidence, no sources, no reasoning. I could provide citations for days. The Monte Carlo exchange is fairly regularly used as a surprise weapon against the French for players who like open games and want to get the French player out of their comfort zone. Maybe not all that often at the Super GM level (although it has been/is still used by the very best players in the world) but it is not uncommon at all and it is becoming more common at all levels below the Super GM level. I know. I make a good living off of chess and stay on top of all trends and have written articles you have almost certainly read if chess is a hobby of yours. Think. Do some research. Or just uh ... hey get lost mannn that’s my budddah. Christ. --DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Or don't go away. No one is listening. Quale (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
- Who tf asked your opinion lol? You “go away.” He really tries to work with me? Did you read any of that? Oh you like the guy so let’s just go with his position on the matter even though he contradicts himself, is a firehouse of logical fallacies, and has not given one reason in compliance with Wikipedia’s standards as to why this shouldn’t be in the article ... “go away ... that’s my buddy ... he’s right” - no evidence, no sources, no reasoning. I could provide citations for days. The Monte Carlo exchange is fairly regularly used as a surprise weapon against the French for players who like open games and want to get the French player out of their comfort zone. Maybe not all that often at the Super GM level (although it has been/is still used by the very best players in the world) but it is not uncommon at all and it is becoming more common at all levels below the Super GM level. I know. I make a good living off of chess and stay on top of all trends and have written articles you have almost certainly read if chess is a hobby of yours. Think. Do some research. Or just uh ... hey get lost mannn that’s my budddah. Christ. --DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- Go away. Your uncivil and insulting language proves that it's a waste of time to try to work with you, and Cobblet is correct on the chess aspects. Quale (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- Never broken 2100 USCF. I am a NM. The fact that the author of the article (which has one numerous awards) hasn’t has no bearing on the collection of materials and sources he brought forth. Solid ad hominem though. Actually it was moronic and baseless but is no surprise considering the logical fallacies you have spewed forth without one ounce of consciousness so far. And did you see who the world champion’s were playing? Come on. At least do a tiny bit of research. And by your argument it DOES have a bearing on the evaluation as a whole. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonkeyPunchResin (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- Naturally it's the person who knows nothing besides the work of someone who's never broken USCF 2100 who thinks they're the one being open-minded. What you have failed to recognize from all the world champion games you're quoting is that not a single one of them actually played the Monte Carlo: rather they all chose opening lines that could only arise from a Monte Carlo move order if Black displayed no positional understanding whatsoever. Nobody who understands chess meets 4.c4 with 4...dxc4 5.Bxc4, handing White a free tempo to develop the bishop; or 4...Bd6 which both misplaces the bishop in the IQP position that White may force, and also invites c4-c5 at some point. Only an incompetent Black player would try to transpose to the 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 QGA line that Kasparov and Karpov played, or the 4.Nf3 Bd6 5.c4 French Exchange main line that Carlsen played, when White chooses 4.c4 in the Exchange. Those players did not play the Monte Carlo; they played lines that are better than the Monte Carlo. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- So now we have to extensively cover every opening line that was used by any chess player to obtain a GM norm? Kasparov has never played Deep Fritz. Please cite reliable sources that demonstrate that games of "major importance" have been played after 4.c4. Virtually every book written on the French that says something to the effect that the Exchange Variation does not create problems for Black; in contrast, I do not know of a single one that suggests that 4.c4 might affect that evaluation in any way. If White wants to force an IQP position against the French there are ways to do it that pose Black more problems, not only in the Exchange but especially in the Tarrasch, as explained in Sam Collins's An Attacking Repertoire for White and Yevseev's Fighting the French; but even the system presented in those books has not discouraged anyone from playing the French as Black. You may want to educate yourself, change your user name, and stop writing in all caps before you undertake to call other people "sophomoric". Cobblet (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2020
- Strongly disagree. There are way more obscure lines and traps that get fairly extensive coverage. The Monte Carlo exchange has been used by some MAJOR chess names as a weapon. Ashley got his first GM norm with it is one accomplishment I can think of off hand. Kasparov used it against Deep Fritz as well. This isn’t a perfect metaphor but since Morphy played less than 1% of chess games should he not be covered. Sure Morphy is a chess legend but games of great beauty and major importance have been played in the Monte Carlo. The 1% logic is just blockish. “And has no bearing on the evaluation of the opening as a whole.” This statement seems to be nothing but pure nonsense as every move into the game the possibilities expand at a wildly exponential rate. We have lines that go 10+ moves deep on here. c4 is the FOURTH move in the Monte Carlo exchange. Certainly the possibility it could be played has a bearing on the evaluation of the opening. The “no bearing” logic is sub sophomoric.--DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- What exactly do you want to say about 4. c4 that the article doesn't already say?
- If you want to give it a name, e.g. "Monte Carlo", the usual requirement would be that you find a "reliable source" that gives it that name. Chessgames.com doesn't count as a RS, but if you have one, I'd be happy to look.
- If you want to discuss the theory in more depth, again, since this is Wikipedia, you would be expected to find a RS, and quote or paraphrase that source's discussion.
- I am not a RS, but I am a regular French player, and I would have to say that I don't prepare for 4. c4. So I'm skeptical that it would be worth any more attention than the article is currently giving it, but, ... prove me wrong! (Edited, corrected from 3.c4 to 4. c4, sorry.) Bruce leverett (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! I’m happy to be proven wrong as well. I just think it’s worth a discussion rather than pooh-poohing the whole matter. First off I know blogger is generally not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, the blog I cited above (the Kenilworthian), which goes into some detail and refers to it as the “French Defense, Monte Carlo Exchange Variation”, won the “Best Blog Award” three times from the the Chess Journalists of America. https://www.chessjournalism.org/awardsarchive For what it’s worth the author of that blog, Michael Goeller, is already used as an authority in the Bishop's Opening article. Further, GM Paul Van der Sterren considers the line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4. Bxc4 the “Queens Gambit Accepted or Monte Carlo French” in his article "Transposition from the Queens Gambit." New in Chess Yearbook 32 (1994). While this line does include e5 it is obviously quite similar. Chess.com also refers to it as the French Defense: Exchange, Monte Carlo Variation. https://www.chess.com/openings/French-Defense-Exchange-Monte-Carlo-Variation Chess Tempo calls it the Monte Carlo and also lists a number of games (many recent as some comments indicate the history of chess openings doesn’t matter) https://old.chesstempo.com/gamedb/opening/629 In regards to its relevancy the Monte Carlo French was used extensively during the romantic era of chess as it led to open attacking games. I’m not going to show every example by every player but Staunton, considered the best player in the world for almost a decade, used it frequently.https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001435 Louis-Charles Mahé de La Bourdonnais, maybe the best player of the early 19th century reached the position more times than you can shake a stick at albeit usually if not always by transposition https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001140 In modern times it has also seen use albeit sometimes by transposition as seen here in a match between Boris Gelfand and Michael Adams. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1014579 It’s getting late for me but Joshua Waitzkin and Maurice Ashley used the Monte Carlo French along with countless other greats. Here are some lists of players who used the Monte Carlo French and relevant games (I do realize not all these games are precisely the move order of the Monte Carlo French). https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1026239 http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/games/java/2009/fr-ex-c4.htm. --DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- One question I’d have too is how is chess games not a reliable source when it’s linked or cited to on virtually every page about chess?--DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Lichess also refers to it as the French Defense: Exchange, Monte Carlo Variation. By far the two biggest chess websites that also have the best players call it the Monte Carlo. https://lichess.org/0o2ePsQr --DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am going to be late answering this, because I am traveling (playing in a tournament, in fact); may not be able to give a proper answer until about March 16. Thanks for your patience! Bruce leverett (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I have a little time for this. First, let me say that I'm sorry that the discussion got out of control. I have great respect for the guys that were arguing with you, and I definitely don't want to try to place blame here. Let's all be extra careful going forward.
- I have looked up the links you gave, and, as a player, I am really intrigued. In particular, I note that the line with 4 ... dxc4, where white gets instant free development of his king bishop, is more common, but definitely worse, than alternatives like 4 ... Nf6 or 4 ... Bb4. I also play the QGA as black and this is telling me that after 3. e3 I should definitely avoid 3. ... e5, which hadn't really occurred to me before, though I don't think I've ever actually played 3. ... e5 here.
- As a Wikipedia editor, I think that some of your links are the gold standard of Reliable Sources for chess, e.g. opening books, articles in NIC Yearbook, etc. We can argue over some of them, but that's for later.
- I don't think there's justification for significantly expanding our coverage of 4. c4. It's more interesting than I thought, but it's still an obscure sub-variation of an obscure variation. Everybody calls it a "surprise weapon" -- that's not a good sign. The French article is already very large and some important lines are suffering from lack of coverage. (But thank goodness somebody finally added the Milner-Barry gambit.)
- However, if you want to add a sentence or so about best strategy against 4. c4, particularly if you can find some advice in one of the sources that is worth paraphrasing, I would be interested.
- Names of chess variations are not a topic I enjoy. I think far too many variations have names. In this case the question is, is someone likely to look up "Monte Carlo variation" in Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, then that would justify mentioning that name in the article ("... sometimes called the Monte Carlo variation ..."). My personal choice would be, if Watson or Glek calls it by that name, I would happily cite them; Goeller, I'm not so sure, but you can think about it. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
No citations in General Themes Section
editThis is a large block of text with no references. Is this commonly accepted in a chess article? Elsewhere, this would be tagged with "doesn't cite any sources". Dhalamh (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
King's Indian Attack
edit"Black has several ways to combat this setup: 3...c5 followed by ...Nc6, ...Bd6, ...Nf6 or ...Nge7 and ...0-0 is common" ... this is confusing. You have gone straight to Black's third move without specifying his second or White's third. For instance I have played 2...c5 with the idea of ...Nc6, ...Nf6, and ...Be7, deferring to move the d-pawn until White has decided between Nc3 and Nbd2. Also, with the common move order 2...d5 3.Nd2 c5 4. Nf3, Black might follow with ...Nf6 and ...Be7, or (less commonly) with ...Bd6 and ...Nge7, but these cannot be combined, e.g. ...Nf6 and ...Bd6 together will lead to trouble. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Go ahead and edit, I'm not particularly expert on the KIA. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)