Talk:King's Pawn Game

King's Pawn Opening

Isn't it 'King's Pawn Opening' rather then 'King's Pawn Game'? ChessCreator (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Chess says "opening" but I have heard "game", e.g. Chessgames C44. Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Others from Chessgames

Opening - Chessgames B00

Game - Chessgames C20 Bubba73 (talk), 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps 1. e4 is a KP Opening whereas 1. e4 e5 is KP Game if it isn't something more specific? Just guessing. Bubba73 (talk), 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Web references[1][2] seem to imply that 'King's Pawn Game' is 1.e4 e5 and that does make a little more sense to me. ChessCreator (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Per the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickering Defense, there seemed to be a broad consensus that the opening 1.e4 h5 should not have a separate article; but the closer determined no consensus for deletion. The following articles broadly have broadly speaking the same troubles as 1.e4 h5. They are unorthodox, for very good reason, and have hardly been played by anyone. The merge proposals here are not entirely random, they are the replies to 1.e4 which do not have at least one separate column or line of analysis in Modern Chess Openings.

• Corn Stalk Defense 1.e4 a5. Apparently Schiller has a page on this line in Unorthodox Chess Openings (but titled "Ware Defense"). Still not a line which is taken seriously by anybody.
• Lemming Defense 1.e4 Na6. Also has an entry in Unorthodox Chess Openings. But again a line not taken seriously by any serious chess chess player, and analysis on the line is paltry grounds for expansion.
• Fred Defence 1.e4 f5, has a chapter in Unorthodox Chess Openings called the "Duras Gambit". The ...Kf7 line given in our Wikipedia article looks just stupid, the type of thing a 2200 player does against a 900 player to boast about their superiority. Not sure the Chess Nation website cited in the article would qualify as reliable. After reading "This is another crack headed idea like the king's gambit," I would think not. The King's Gambit is absolutely not "crack headed" but a meaningful if speculative sacrifice by White.
• Barnes Defense 1.e4 f6. Well, the best this line has accomplished is defeat Morphy... Still, this is another of those silly joke openings for which serious analysis is lacking. Even Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't seem to cover it.
• Pickering Defense 1.e4 h5. This is the one a AFDed and probably the one in the worst shape. The only sources I have found on this line confirm that 1...h5 is legal, and that it's bad. That is just as good as having no sources.
• Carr Defense 1.e4 h6. Covered in Unorthodox Chess Openings, but again serious analysis, and attention by strong players is absent.
• Adams Defense 1.e4 Nh6. Not covered in Unorthodox Chess Openings.

Although some of these lines have miscellaneous facts about them beyond being legal and bad, there seems to be far too little literature on them to support a full-fledged article. Many of the current articles have a few variations given, but seem to be original research without supporting literature to back them up. What verifiable information there is can fit comfortably in this article.

We should perhaps also discuss the reliability of Unorthodox Chess Openings, which I do not have. Tony Miles' review of the book was that it was "utter crap", but that does not by itself mean that it is unreliable for us writing an encyclopedia. It is probably unreliable for a chess player looking for good openings to play in a tournament however, and if our articles are supposed to be useful to a reader, our sources should be of high quality.

Two openings do not have articles yet, one might maybe support an article, the other definitely won't.

• Borg Defense 1.e4 g5 has two columns in MCO14, and described as not all that bad, Michael Basman plays eccentric stuff, but not stuff which doesn't have redeeming qualities. 1...g5 is such a move, and the available literature may support a separate article.
• 1.e4 b5 (called "Polish Gambit" here, although the Polish Gambit in Unorthodox Chess Openings is something completely different) just drops a pawn for nothing. Nobody would play this except as a deliberate handicap.

Other openings in the B00 series of ECO are 1...b6, 1...Nc6, and 1...a6. All these are not mainstream, but have been subject of adequate attention; 1...Nc6 even has its own MCO chapter. Separate articles can be maintained for all these lines. The replies leading to ECO codes B01-B99 and C00-C99 are all mainstream, have abundant analysis, and support independent articles without any trouble. The merge proposals here are for the openings without this kind of coverage.

Though I have been critical of the general guideline given at WP:N, it works well for chess openings. There is an abundance of chess literature on the market, easily available, and the amount of coverage given to various lines correlates very well to the opening's importance. The lines I propose merging here do not seem to meet the WP:N guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The merge proposal sounds reasonable to me. I think there's a pretty clear demarcation between these openings and other asymmetrical king pawn openings. Apart from Barnes 150 years ago (beating Morphy with 1...f6?), Duras in that strange 1938 match with Bernstein (1...f5?), and International Master Basman (1...g5?!), no strong player ever plays these openings. (Note, btw, that 1.e4 g5 and 1.e4 h6 will usually come to the same thing after 1.e4 g5 2.d4 h6 and 1.e4 h6 2.d4 g5.) Opening Explorer at ChessGames.com (available only to premium members) shows how rare (or non-notable, in Wikipedia parlance) these openings are: after 1.e4, Black's responses in their database are 1...c5 (95,729 times), 1...e5 (70,845), 1...e6 (26,594), 1...c6 (14,705), 1...d6 (7,475), 1...g6 (6,008), 1...Nf6 (4,757), 1...d5 (4,188), 1...Nc6 (1,109), 1...b6 (456), 1...a6 (206), (Black's responses after this are the ones that would be in the proposed merged article) 1...g5 (67), 1...a5 (12), 1...h6 (10), 1...f5 (8), 1...f6 (8), 1...Na6 (4), 1...h5 (3), 1...Nh6 (1). No one played the dreaded Polish Gambit (1...b5?) in the 232,194 games in CG's database that began with 1.e4. Note that the most popular of these openings (1...g5) was played less than a third as often as the least popular of the "regular" defenses (1...a6).

I am inclined to agree with your proposed demarcation, although a case could be made for shifting 1...g5 the other way. Note that 1...g5 is, with 1...b6 and 1...a6, under "Unusual King's Pawn Defenses" in MCO-15 (p. 384), lines that "are viewed by theory as unreliable", though they have "surprise value and the psychological impact of flouting known principles". Nick DeFirmian writes of 1...g5, "Black is only somewhat worse, and if White plays with too much disregard he can have troubles". Note that in the above statistics, 1...g5 was played 5 1/2 times as often (67 times) as the next most-popular defense (1...a5 - 12 times), and more than 1...a5 and all the defenses below it put together (46). DeFirmian effectively draws the line after 1...g5, writing, "Other moves, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they are simply too bad and need no discussion."

What would we call the new article? I suggest "Irregular King Pawn Openings". That is more or less consistent with Reuben Fine in "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings". The last of the "King Pawn Openings" he recognizes is 1.e4 Nc6 (not 1..d6, 1...g6, 1...b6, 1...a6, or 1...g5). He wrote (p. 101) that "Other defenses will be handled under Irregular Openings." (Amusing note: Fine in his book on the Fischer-Spassky 1972 world championship match gave Fischer's 1.e4 d6 a dubious mark (?!), calling the Pirc Defense "an anti-positional, counter-attacking line".) Krakatoa (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and merged the non-MCO defenses here, though it probably needs a bit more cleanup. The source used for the names of 1.e4 h5, among others, looks pretty dubious to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, non-members also have access to the lowest tiers of the ChessGames.com openings explorer, but it seems to end when the number of game samples drops below 200 (viewing stuff beyond this requires payed registration). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, thanks for performing these merges. I hope this helps to slow the spread of cancerously bad chess opening articles. Quale (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Although Bill Wall's old pages provide great resources, I don't think that a geocities web page is a reliable source. (In particular, it's self-published and there is no editorial review.) In any case, it's completely inadequate if it's the only source, which it appears to be as used in this article. Any chess opening name found only a single geocities web page (and other sources copied from it) fails verifiability and notability. I think better sources must be found or the claims should be removed. Sadly, other cites will copy wikipedia's lead and consider this information reliable just because it is published here. It's far too late for us to nip this in the bud, but it should still be nipped, even if belatedly. Quale (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It bothers me as well. One issue is the presence of a few dozen redirects pointing right at this article, and if those titles are not in some way shown in this article, those using those redirects might get very confused. My effort to remove coverage of 1.e4 h5 entirely (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickering Defense) didn't work, even though all the opinions from the Chess WikiProject favored deletion. Hence, to remove the article, there had to be something to merge, but if we look at the last pre-redirect version here, what is there to merge? The variation given "Picklepuss" is not covered in the source cited in the footnote (I'm at a loss as to why that source was added), so I was reduced to merging in the name where the source at least matched what the article said. At least Bill Wall has published some chess books, and that lends some credibility to his self-published works, even though I will tend to agree with your assessment regarding the reliability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Borg Defense

I actually think 1. e4 g5 merits its own article. It isn't that lousy, and while Michael Basman plays eccentric stuff, he doesn't play outright awful stuff like 1. e4 b5.

There is no reason given why 1. ... g5 is bad on Wikibooks. The rest of the articles probably should be redirected here, though. 1. ... g5 is where the line should probably be drawn. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 06:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like no after eleven-plus years. Chess Opening Essentials mostly dismisses it: "the lost tempo [vs the Modern] and, more importantly, the weakening of the kingside seems to be a bit beyond the pale. Therefore, with correct play, these defects should guarantee White a clear advantage."

Actually in practice the line of notability (which is of course correct for WP) is kind of generous if you think of the strengths of the replies. Let's say: 1...g5, 1...a6, and 1...b6 are rare for a reason. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(Originally I also had classed 1...Nc6 among those, but in retrospect it probably isn't that bad. The White player with something better to do than fight a theoretical battle on his opponent's turf, however, would be well-advised to respond 2.Nf3! as GM Larry Kaufman recommends, when anything but 2...e5 is inferior, and we're back to normal territory.) Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)