Talk:King's Gambit, Fischer Defense
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
New talk
editSince this is a defence for Black, shouldn't the graphic diagram have Black on the bottom? --Rishiboy (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Did Fischer really burst into tears after losing to Spassky in their first encounter? This is a claim I've never seen, and I'd like to see a source. Hushpuckena (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC) .it is the game of mind since 1888 you were shoked to knowing that this is mind game. when if you play this game you play.
Old talk
editDid Fischer's idea really make the KG less common as we claim? I think the gambit was rarely played at the top level even before his 1962 article. 165.189.91.148 19:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what the empirical support for that claim is, either. It probably should be removed. Krakatoa 07:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
<A quite recent idea is 4.d4 g5 5.Nc3. White's plan is to leave the bishop on f1 for a while and to develop the queenside first: Be3, Qd2, 0-0-0.> Be3?? what a move! the Black can simply play gxf4 taking the bishop with the pawn
Incorrect diagram
editThe white knights are missing from the diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.152.53 (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not when I view it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Computer analysis
editShould there be perhaps what analysis with state-of-the-art computers says? As far as I know, this line is favored by correspondence players, which is based particularly on that computers (I mean interactive analysis like IDEA) indicate 2...d6 as superior to others (and better for black).Drabek (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Anything in an article must be based on a published, reliable source. See WP:V and WP:RS for details, along with WP:NOR. There was a discussion on the chess wikiproject specifically about use of computer analysis, see WT:CHESS#unpublished Houdini / Rybka / Crafty / Fritz = WP verifiable?. Basically if you find a published reliable source that reports on computer analysis it can be used, but you can't perform the computer analysis yourself and put it in an article. Quale (talk) 03:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)