Talk:Open Game

Double King's Pawn Opening

I propose that this page be moved to Double King's Pawn Opening. Any objections? --Matthew Proctor 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Open Game" is much more commonly used. youngvalter 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "open game" has always referred to a game that is open ie. lots of space, rather than an opening. Maybe I'm just wrong on this one. --Matthew Proctor 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "open game" dates from the 19th century and refers to everything after 1.e4 e5, since it was assumed those openings always led to the types of positions you're talking about. And everything else was a "closed game". Sometime afterwards somebody made up the term "semi-open game" for 1.e4 without 1...e5, and I've even seen "semi-closed game" being used for 1.d4 Nf6. Of course we know now that those are gross generalizations, but the names have stuck and are pretty well recognized (except for "semi-closed"). youngvalter 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Boungcloud Attack 2.Ke2?

I have deleted reference to the so-called "Boungcloud Attack", 2.Ke2?, because it is not notable. This "opening" was the subject of a previous article on Wikipedia, which after a vote for deletion was deleted on April 8, 2008. According to that article, the Boungcloud Attack was originated by a player on chess.com with a rating of 360, one of the lowest-rated players on that site (according to the article, one starts with a 1200 rating, so it presumably takes a lot of work to get down to 360). Of the 74,278 double king-pawn games on ChessGames.com, 2.Ke2? occurs (you guessed it) zero times. Without cracking a book, I feel safe in asserting that it is not to be found in any of the chess encyclopedias generally recognized as reliable sources (The Oxford Companion to Chess, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, Sunnucks' The Encyclopaedia of Chess, etc. Apart from 2.Ba6??, 2.Ke2 is arguably the worst move on the board. Like its cousin the "King David Attack" against the Sicilian (2.Ke2?), which I deleted from the Sicilian Defense article for similar reasons, the Boungcloud Attack pretty much defines non-notability. Krakatoa (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Last month my daughter encountered this in a tournament: 1. e3 e5 2. Qe2. Who gets the right to name it? :-) And I see the Rook Lift opening from time to time: 1. h4 ... 2. Rh3 (and similar). Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are lots of beginners who play a4 and h4 and roll out their rooks. As for 1.e3 e5 2.Qe2, it's almost a recognized line. 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 (hindering 2...d5 since Black won't be able to recapture with the pawn) is Chigorin's Variation of the French Defense. Krakatoa (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Van 't Kruijs Opening. I played against 1. e3 once in a tournament. Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to name 1. e3 e5 2. Qe2 the Queen Elizabeth version of the Van 't Kruijs Opening, after the QE2! Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Eric Schiller would love your naming methodology! For him, 1.Na3 is the "Sodium Attack" since Na = sodium. Krakatoa (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or 1. Nh3, the Ammonia attack, since Ammonia is NH3! Bubba73 (talk), 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, that is already used Amar Opening. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Réti Opening no more! From now on, 1.Nf3 is the Nitrogen Trifluoride Attack! And 1.Nc3 can be the North Carolina's 3rd congressional district Attack! OK, the latter one may not be that exciting a name. Krakatoa (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tortoise Opening 2.Bd3?!

I have also deleted reference to the "Tortoise Opening", 2.Bd3?! as non-notable. That "opening" apparently appears on page 246 of Eric Schiller's 1998 book Unorthodox Chess Openings. See its index. Yes, that would be the same book that (as our article on Schiller notes) Tony Miles famously gave the two-word review "utter crap". Like the Boungcloud Attack, the Tortoise is not played in a single game of the 74,278 double king-pawn games (and 500,000+ total games) on ChessGames.com. To state the obvious, an opening that is never played is not notable. I do not think its mention in Schiller's book, which features a plethora of bizarre "openings" never seen in any more conventional source, makes it notable. Krakatoa (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored mention of the Tortoise Opening since admin Sjakkalle, despite grave misgivings about the opening's notability, has restored the article about it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Tortoise_Opening. Krakatoa (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It at least needs to be a redirect, in case someone types it in at the Search field. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle has apparently had a partial change of heart. He deleted the Tortoise Opening article and made it (again) into a redirect to this article. I've accordingly deleted the wiki-link in this article to the now-nonexistent article (i.e. this article mentions the T.O. but has no wiki-link). Krakatoa (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Link in Infobox

The link to Chessgames.com in the infobox seems like advertisement as the website charges 30$ a year for its services. The link is not a source and it does not add any value to the article, so it should be removed. I would do it myself, but I do not seem to be able to edit the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.102.175 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The link also occurs in practically every chess openings article, and there are hundreds of those. So your proposal is better brought up at WT:CHESS. (But this has been discussed before. $30/yr doesn't negate the value offered by the website to WP articles. [You're wrong about the value offered.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can get the chessgames opening explorer page linked in this article for free. I'm not a member and I can go as deep as after White's fifth move (before Black's fifth) without paying. Quale (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Xmsk 2600:8801:3918:6C00:E19E:CB8F:2B54:8227 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Origin of name

Specifically came here to find out why it's called "Open Game", but that is missing. 2607:FB91:BD9F:157E:AC39:82F7:98F1:A892 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Gee, do you think it might possibly be because an Open Game usually leads to an open game? --IHTS (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)