Talk:Irregular chess opening

Old talk

Can we add Hippo Defence?--Sonjaaa 21:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

No, Hippo Defence is B00. Sjakkalle 12:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical or by move?

Currently these are listed alphabetically. Might they be better in order of which pieces are moved?

• Anderssen's Opening 1.a3
• Ware Opening 1.a4*Sokolsky Opening (also known as Polish or Orangutan Opening) 1.b4
• Saragossa Opening 1.c3
• Mieses Opening 1.d3
• Van 't Kruijs Opening 1.e3
• Barnes Opening (also known as Gedult's Opening) 1.f3
• Benko's Opening 1.g3
• Grob's Attack 1.g4
• Clemenz Opening 1.h3
• Desprez Opening 1.h4
• Durkin Opening (also known as Durkin's Attack) 1.Na3
• Dunst Opening 1.Nc3
• Amar Opening (also known as Paris Opening) 1.Nh3

I don't have strong feelings either way, which is why I've brought it up here. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As of 2013, this lists are now inconsistent. (One based on left–right on the board; the other, looks like, on frequency of use.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Title change?

"Irregular chess opening" seems too judgmental, especially since some of the irregular openings of the past have become widely accepted. Fianchettos, for example, were once condemned as weakening the pawn structure. I suggest renaming it "Uncommon chess opening." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

They are sometimes called "irregular" in the literature, e.g. Comprehensive Chess Openings by Estrin and Panov. I thought Modern Chess Openings, tenth edition, called them irregular, but it says "unusual". "Uncommon" or "unusual" may be better. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The book 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower and Du Mont also calls them "irregular openings" (chapter 33). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Also these books:

• Irregular Openings (Chess is Fun) by Jon Edwards (2011)
• Irregular openings by T. D. Harding (1974)
• Irregular Openings for the 1990's by Tim Harding (1986, must be an updated version of the 1974 one) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"Irregular" is a term used in chess literature and I don't recommend scratching it in WP. It means "infrequently used" or "infrequently seen", so really that is objective not judgmental. I suggest instead to modify the term def in Glossary of chess#Irregular opening slightly from "unusual" to "infrequently used", plus add language to the current article giving the chess context meaning "infrequent". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this page by chance; it wasn't cited in the main Chess, so I've added it there, in See Also - other lists (since it does seem to be a list).

In keeping with other lists, I propose to change the name to reflect that category.

Also, since any non-standard opening could be regarded as irregular, should we refer to "notable" irregular openings (plural)?

My proposal for name change is therefore: "List of notable irregular chess openings".

Comments? Is that too wordy? If o-one objects, I'll change it in a week or so (Friday 10th May 013 approx) One is one and one is one (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I could see renaming it to List of irregular chess openings to be consistent with existing list List of chess openings. Notability is not a requirement to be on the list. I removed your 'See also' addition to Chess since not even List of chess openings appears there (and probably shouldn't). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Ihardlythinkso. I concede I was a little hasty; I came on this page at random & it seemed to be floating alone. I should have realised here would be better stewardship than that.

I see now that a ref to "Chess_opening" does actually appear in Chess (at 4.1 Chess#Opening), and in turn, List of chess openings, does get a reference (at Chess_opening#See_also), then Chess_opening#Unusual_first_moves_for_White (for white?) in turn points here. A bit cumbersome, though.

Could you explain why these lists of openings (popular & unpopular) do not warrant a reference in what would seem to be the parent article? I don't quite follow. (Is it the chess mind at work? Not so relational.)

Yes, you may well be right that the "notable" is excessively pedantic; in any case notability would be a prerequisite for inclusion in WP. Searching for a better title, the article seems to contrast (some) irregular starting moves with the more common ones. It's certainly a list!

Would there be any sense to including both lists at the top "Chess#Opening" level? Or even a move to merge with "Chess_Opening"? One is one and one is one (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition

The term "Irregular Opening" was used much more often in older chess literature when many openings that are standard today were as yet unnamed, and included openings played by Black as well as by White. It does not have a precise definition but I certainly wouldn't define it as "all openings classified under ECO code A00", as this article seems to do. So the fairly common 1.g3 is "irregular" just because the ECO editors classified it under A00, but the rarer 1.b3 and 1.f4 are not because they're classifed under A01 and A02-03? This definition of "irregular opening" is absurd and is not used in any of chess literature. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: I was the one who moved it, but I also thought that it might cause problems. OK well move it back if you wish, but it should be noted that it falls under ECO A00, so using that definition is slightly wrong for that case. The lead would have to be changed to "mostly under A00" if this was done. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll give the definition of "Irregular opening" from the Oxford Companion to Chess.

Irregular opening, in the early 19th century any opening that did not begin with 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5. However, Jaenisch said, 'As this distinction is purely arbitrary, and unfounded on principle, we cannot ourselves adopt it. We distinguish all the openings as "correct", or else as "incorrect" or "hazardous".' Since then many so-called irregular openings have become standard play. These and many other openings have acquired names and the term irregular opening has gradually fallen into disuse.

So it's an old-fashioned term, and certainly not a synonym for "ECO Code A00".MaxBrowne (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK I've moved it. I still think it is a useful term, despite being open to debate to some extent, like much of opening terminology. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue for me is what exactly this article is supposed to be about and how it should integrate with the rest of our chess opening articles. The original title of the article way back in 2002 was "A00", which though a very specialized jargon term related to a code in a specific reference work did at least accurately describe the article's contents. The evolution of the title has been A00 -> A00 (chess opening) -> Irregular openings (chess) -> Irregular chess openings -> Irregular chess opening. If the article is to be titled "Irregular chess opening" or similar (IMO "Irregular opening" or "Irregular opening (chess)" would be better) then the scope of it must be expanded to reflect the actual historical usage of the term, which in the 19th century included even such now common openings as the Sicilian and French. (See Staunton's chess-player's handbook, page 368). If the contents of the article actually reflected the title, it would be more of a chess history article than an opening theory article since the term "irregular opening" is now considered more or less obsolete. It would probably describe usage by various writers such as Tartakower, Reti, Alekhine, earlier editions of MCO etc and gradual obsolescence. If the article is specifically to be about the openings designated by ECO code "A00", then it's better off being merged with Chess opening". MaxBrowne (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Well I really don't agree with a merger. It's a common term in usage in both the real world and in many of the chess articles in the project. i don't know what a merge would do apart from make a long article even longer, and without solving any differences in the actual content. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Since being moved from "A00 (chess opening)" to "Irregular openings (chess)", the article has had a misleading title which does not accurately reflect its contents.

• The lead sentence "Irregular openings are chess openings with an unusual or rare first move by White." is not only unsourced, it is in fact false. The original definition as given by Staunton and others included all openings not beginning with 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5. Even in fairly recent books like Harding's "Irregular openings for the 90s" (1986), openings such as 1.e4 g5 were considered "irregular" (more or less a synonym for "unorthodox").

• The article in fact contains very little content, it's mostly just a series of wikilinks. This could easily be merged with another article such as Chess opening.

• If the article is to be retained, it needs a title which more accurately reflects its scope ("Unusual first moves by White"?), or else needs to be rewritten to reflect the actual usage of the term "irregular opening" in chess literature.

• The term "non-irregular opening" is not used anywhere.

MaxBrowne (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

wp:OVERCITE

Read it, absorb it, and trim back some of the crappier citations. MaxBrowne (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Chess Informant PDF source is pretty good and can only really be topped by a hardcopy page reference, therefore have removed duplicitous links, like chessgames and chessarch links. It would be nice to see explanations for the names of the lines but I'm assuming that'll be covered (or perhaps already has) on the relevant pages. I dont understand what the Nimzowitsch biography refers to as I don't own the book. I would like to see a quote in the reference to explain the cite. As for the one that has escalated to a complaint, the link should not be here. As per recent discussion on spam relating to WTHarvey, the link shouldn't be in the article. As I explained at the start, the PDF link already covers us on the cite front, therefore I support keeping it off the page. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for all these citations was to show common usage. Irregular openings and ECO A00 are all over the Internet. But I can't convince that this is the case, hence the citations. The book one was to a book, the internet link was merely to the publishers web-site. How can a link to the publisher of ECO be considered a spam link? It is the most important one of all. Also wp:OVERCITE is an essay, not policy, so holds no weight. The Nimzowitsch biography refers to Irregular openings and ECO A00. chessgames and chessarch are reliable sites. Also the second chessarch referred to irregular chess games, the very bones of this current disagreement.

You really should reconsider all this.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The link went to the page promoting a book for sale. We had this debate before and had almost unanimous agreement that those sorts of links were considered spam. On the point of proving common usage, ECO is duplicated on those sites. The ECO list is fine by itself. We dont need three sites saying the same thing when in reality only one said it, the others copied it. On Nimzowitsch, we really need to see a full citation. Yes, it was an essay but it was making a very good point about using citations appropriately. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok well the thing to do is put a ECO book citation but without a link to the publishers website. Simple enough. Believe me when I say it: more refs may well be needed, because they support "common usage" idiom. Removing them may exacerbate the situation. Normally they would not be needed but this is not a usual situation. Comprehensive citation is not normally needed, but look at some areas of dispute and there is considerably more citations needed to halt disagreement. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to the issues - at the risk of repeating myself

Before any more edits are made to try to "fix" the article I suggest we resolve the following questions.

(1) What is the article's scope? Is it about "irregular" openings in general, or is it about the openings covered by ECO code A00 specifically?

(2) If "A00", is "Irregular chess opening" an appropriate title, given that many other openings have been (and to some extent continue to be) described as "irregular"?

(3) If "A00", what should the article be called? A00 is a "dustbin" code containing miscellaneous openings. Whether you describe A00 as "Irregular openings" or "Uncommon openings" or "Unusual openings" or "Unorthodox openings" or "Miscellaneous openings" or (as the Russians would say) "Incorrect openings", these are plain English descriptions of the openings covered by ECO code A00, not commonly accepted names like "Sicilian Defence" or even well defined technical terms. A plain English interpretation of any of these descriptions would also incorporate openings covered by other ECO codes such as Alapin's Opening.

(4) Why is an article about ECO code A00 even necessary? The article contains little content besides wikilinks. ECO code A00 is already adequately covered by List of chess openings and to a lesser extent Chess opening. It seems to me the article is redundant, and any worthwhile material not already covered by these articles (which is hardly any) could easily be incorporated.

All things considered, I am in favour of deletion. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your behavior has been questioned over edit-warring and battleground at [1]. Please respond. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

At no point have I personalised this content dispute, and your response is inappropriate and off-topic use of the article talk page. I will not engage you further on this front and request that an uninvolved editor hat this subthread. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

masterchessopen.com

This is a self-published site of dubious value. It should not be used as a source on any wikipedia chess articles. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You've actively edited to remove other citations. You've stated that you want to have the article deleted [2]. All this suggests contravening WP:GAMING, i.e. removing citations/ claiming citation overkill, then suggesting deletion. These are serious allegations. You really should respond at [3]. There are the following references:

References

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith are getting out of hand. Please cease them immediately. I request that an uninvolved editor hat this subthread too. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Then respond to them at WP:3RR. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It would also be off-topic there. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the cites, not MaxBrowne. Yes, he advocated removal but I looked at them all and explained my reasoning at the time. MaxBrowne is correct on this particular cite, looking at WikiPolicy on self-published sources. It doesn't seem to fit any of the "acceptable" criteria. As for the debate on deletion, I'm happy to go with consensus on it. Jkmaskell (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not happy with all the refs being deleted. Between the two of you you are making it an unreferenced article. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of "self published". Jesus when are you going to come up with any references? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of self-published: http://www.masterchessopen.com/about. Claus Gamborg is not a notable chess player (he's actually a rather weak chess player) nor is he a notable chess writer, he's just some guy on the internet and as such his writings carry no more weight than yours or mine.

I would not object to restoring the Nimzowitsch book, McFarlane is a reputable publisher and the page referenced can be found at google books. A url to that could be used. The deal with the reference is that Nimzowitsch occasionally played 1.e3. At the end of the book there is an index of games by ECO code; 1.e3 is of course A00. This author chooses the description "irregular openings" for the ECO code A00. The descriptions by the chess informant publishers (i.e. the guys who invented the code in the first place) still carry more weight. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 July 2016

Needs {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article as has been nominated for deletion. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The lead statement As opening theory has developed and openings formerly considered "irregular" have become standard, the term has been used less frequently. is highly dubious as it is present in a large number of sources, including ECO, but also these:

There are the following references:

References

Also see e.g.

• http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=a00 ;
• http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/types-of-chess-openings.html ;
• http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa03b01.htm ;
• http://www.24-7chess.com/how-to-deal-with-irregular.html ;
• http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/choosing-opening-repertoire

Add the following books:

• Modern Chess Openings (Pitman, 1946),
• Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom, (By Eric Schiller),
• Chess Book for Beginners (By A Gopalratnam)

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The statement directly reflects the source I have cited.

Irregular opening, in the early 19th century any opening that did not begin with 1.e4 e5 or 1.d4 d5. However, Jaenisch said, 'As this distinction is purely arbitrary, and unfounded on principle, we cannot ourselves adopt it. We distinguish all the openings as "correct", or else as "incorrect" or "hazardous".' Since then many so-called irregular openings have become standard play. These and many other openings have acquired names and the term irregular opening has gradually fallen into disuse.

None of your sources support the claim that "irregular opening" is defined by ECO code A00. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. Lots of sources refer to "irregular" or "uncommon" openings as ECO00. You've got a single source saying the term is not in use; it is, just look at the Internet. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Logic 101: "All A are B" is not the same as "all B are A". Assuming for the sake of argument that 1.g3 is described as "irregular" (I wouldn't call it that), "All A00 openings are irregular" is not the same thing as "all irregular openings are A00". No reliable source makes such a claim, it comes only from your faulty understanding of the term, and your citation bombing copy-pasta is getting very tiresome. For various reasons most of them are unsuitable for citing in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't call Encyclopedia of Chess Openings a reliable source? It is considerable lack of logic to ignore it. And the other sources are reliable. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ECO code A00 is a subset of irregular openings, not the definition of irregular openings. We can't have an article that is called one thing, but is about something else. I have explained this until blue in the face but you just refuse to get it. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A huge number of unsubstantiated statements have been included

A large number of unsubstantiated statements have been included [4]. These maintenance tags should not be removed until these various statements have been improved.

Particularly the section "Unusual responses by Black" seems to contain a original research. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I reproduced the material exactly as given in the source (chess informant's list of ECO codes). Your "OR" tag is spurious. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)