Talk:Owen's Defence

Content removal

Inappropriately, another user removed content that would be of possible interest to many Owen players. The material was related to a variation that was described as a pitfall for Black as his position is losing. A similiar looking line in which Black plays a prepatory e6 is OK for Black and the resulting positions can sometimes be difficult for White to play. Given that this 'related line' is played quite often and that it represents a 'pitfall' for an unwary White player, it was inappropriate for the other user to delete the small note on this line, in particular because there is no sole contributor who has the authority to censor valid contributions to a Wikipedia article.

Well, it seems that the user who removed the content is editing from the same IP address as you. Perhaps you removed the content by accident? Regards, decltype (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea what you are talking about, and you may be quite right. However, at the moment you are repeatedly removing most of the content from the page, and I don't know why. If you are concerned about the earlier edit, then you can always talk to the editor in question directly. Quantpole (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I placed the a couple of lines on this variation at the end of the pitfall section but it was removed. The line is worth mentioning, but I will not post it again because you will only remove it. I guess you are 'in charge' and my opinion does not count.

It may not have been your intention, but what you have been doing is repeatedly removing the entire pitfall section. decltype (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't either myself or Decltype who have removed any information - we have been restoring much of the article that was apparently deleted by yourself. It is difficult to tell however, as you are using an IP address. Was it this paragraph you are talking about: [1]? If it is then it was User:Krakatoa who removed what you had written. I recommend that you go to their talkpage to ask them why they removed it. From their edit summary it seems like it was because the section wasn't sourced - i.e. we have no idea if it's just made up out of thin air! However, I know nothing much about chess so cannot tell whether what you were writing looked OK or not. Another option would be to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess and ask someone there. Quantpole (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that after 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4.Nc3 f5 5. exf5 Bxg2 6. Qh5+ g6 7. fxg6 Bg7 White can simply play 8.Nf3 instead of hxg8Q+??, and maintain a solid advantage. decltype (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the paragraph in question, which I indeed deleted, read as follows:

It should be noted that if Black plays e6 (as in the following line) he can get a slightly better position: 1. e4 b6 2. d4 Bb7 3. Bd3 e6 4.Nc3 f5 5. exf5 Bxg2 6. Qh5+ g6 7. fxg6 Bg7 8. gxh7+ Kf8 9. hxg8=Q+ Kxg8. White will often have difficulty playing the postion and Black frequently scores well as he has many attacking options. Part of the problem for White is psychological as he usually thinks he has a devastating attack, only to find himself having to solve some difficult defensive problems.

This paragraph makes many factual assertions - namely that (1) White will often have difficulty playing the position, (2) Black frequently scores well, (3) Black has many attacking options, (4) White usually thinks he has a devastating attack, (5) White usually finds himself having to solve difficult defensive problems, and (6) White has a psychological problem in this line as a result. No source is given for any of these propositions, which appear to represent instead the writer's point of view. As such, the paragraph violates the fundamental Wikipedia principles of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. There is also the problem of weasel words: what does it mean to say that "White will often have difficulty playing the position", "Black frequently scores well", and "White ... usually thinks he has a devastating attack"? (Emphasis added.) Finally, it is not apparent that this line, whatever its merits, has much practical significance, since there is no reason for White to play the inaccurate 4.Nc3. After the normal 4.Nf3, 4...f5? would simply be a blunder losing a pawn. Krakatoa (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have now added, in addition, conclusions drawn from analysis you have apparently done using the computer program Rybka. This violates, in addition, WP:OR, which forbids the use of original research. Krakatoa (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In your article there are many remarks that are subjective and unsubstantiated, such as ‘White has the advantage’. Who says White has the advantage? You also use weasel words such as a 'dubious reputation'. You carry on the usual tradition of denigrating perfectly viable openings on the basis that they are not used at the very highest levels. If you think that the Owen is inferior, try playing against Fritz when it employs the defence and you will quickly realise that the defence is playable against 98% of the world’s chess players. If you believed articles such as yours, we would all be playing the Semi-Slav. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.54.178 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to your contention, this is not "my article". It is Wikipedia's policy that no editor owns any Wikipedia article. See WP:OWN. Moreover, the sentences to which you object were originally written by editors other than me, without citation. In order to make the article compliant with WP:RS, I spent hours looking up and supplying reliable sources (e.g., Kasparov and Keene's Batsford Chess Openings 2, and MCO-15 by Nick de Firmian regarding the opening's reputation as inferior) that supported the statements in the article, and modified the article where the sources did not support the statements as originally written. I also furnished the quotes from BCO-2 and MCO-15 so that readers had the benefit of the cited authors' opinions rather than my gloss on those opinions. In addition, I mentioned Andrew Martin's favorable opinion (from Black's perspective) of 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 g6 ("!"). My own view of the Owen's merits, and yours, are irrelevant; what matters is what reliable sources say about it. How successful Fritz would be against me with the Owen, and whether the defense is playable against 98% of the world's players, are equally irrelevant. It is the role of a Wikipedia editor to express a neutral point of view as derived from, and supported by citation to, reliable sources. That is what I have endeavored to do. If you want to cite other reliable sources that express a different opinion, great. But you are not free to offer your own analysis (or that of yourself and Rybka) and your own unsupported opinions about Black's chances, the psychological burdens White is operating under and so forth. Krakatoa (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict—this was written simultaneously with the independent reply above) First, it isn't Krakatoa's article, since no editor owns it. Second, your questions are lazy as the answers are found in the sources directly cited on the page. The statements you ask about are from Kasparov, Keene, and de Firmian. "Dubious reputation" is not weaseling because that's what the sources say. If we wrote articles such as yours, wikipedia would be completely unsourced opinion and worthless. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down boys. This preachy tone of yours is really condescending. Who elected you guys to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong? I do not believe your article is neutral in tone at all. It is obvious that you can present cited sources in such a way as to promote a given opinion. I believe that is the case here. In addition, the article does not state that a few authors consider the line dubious. The article states it has a dubious reputation, which gives the impression that this is a generally held view . Krakatoa says that my note is not relevant because the variation in question relies on White playing an imprecise move. Yet the whole Pitfall section relies on Black playing a weak (or incorrect move). A great deal of chess literature is a discussion of how to respond to bad moves. You make reference to my article; it was only a short note.

I dislike the righteous, highly aggressive, pseudo-professorial tone of your remarks, which is completely at odds with the friendly democratic nature of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.68.144 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No one "elected [us] guys to be the arbiters of what is right and wrong". The countless Wikipedia editors who've spent thousands of hours over many years writing the principles that guide all Wikipedia editors are, collectively, "the arbiters of what is right and wrong". I've cited chapter and verse from those Wikipedia principles. You've cited none of them, and haven't pointed to any respect in which my analysis of those principles, and application of them to your proposed edits, is wrong. Similarly, in the article I've cited myriad sources from 1847 to 2008. You, by contrast, have just related your personal opinions and the fruits of your analysis with Rybka. As I've pointed out, such material violates the fundamental principles that underlie Wikipedia - a neutral point of view, based on reliable sources, no original research. I follow Wikipedia's rules, you don't.

After our previous discussion, in an effort make sure that the article really is objective and isn't improperly slanted toward an "anti-Owen's" perspective, I decided to go back and look at Christian Bauer's book "Play 1...b6", a book that is oriented toward the Black side of the opening. Lo and behold, Bauer (like Kasparov/Keene and de Firmian) frankly admits that Owen's Defense "is regarded by current theory as suspicious", that it does not equalize as easily as more mainstream defenses, and that Black "may suffer against a well-prepared opponent"! I've now added citations to these remarks by Bauer. I also added a citation to Howard Staunton's remarks from 1847 to the effect that Owen's defense is playable. The bottom line is that I've done a huge amount to improve this article. About a month ago, the article was about half its current size and had zero citations - now it has 17 (over 20 if you count multiple citations to the same page), all of them added by me. You've done nothing to improve the article, but rather have added unsourced, POV material that if allowed to stand would have made the article worse. I am as friendly as the next guy, but if you want to violate every principle that underlies Wikipedia and push your own POV, I'm not going to go along with it. Sorry. Krakatoa (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You quote selectively from Bauer’s book so that it appears to support your point of view. If my memory serves me well (it is a while since I read it), Bauer says that against correct play Black will have a small disadvantage when playing the Owen – he then adds that this is the case with virtually every defence. It is White’s birthright to have the advantage. There is no doubt that other defences may be better in the hands of a grandmaster. However, it is not always wise for the vast majority of players to play these openings because quite simply they are not grandmasters and do not have their strategic and tactical skills. There is no doubt that the Sicilian may be a better alternative to the Owen for a super-grandmaster. There is equally no doubt that there is a great deal of complex theory related to the defence, and that it may require a capacity that many players lack. In the introduction for MCO Nick de Firmian recommends for beginners to use the Tarrasch and Scandinavian Defences, despite the fact that the Tarrasch has fallen somewhat out of favour at the very highest levels and that the Scandinavian has been denigrated in countless opening books and has only once been played at World Championship level.

I understand and accept your reasons for believing my very short note does not meet Wikipedia’s standards. However, there was nothing helpful or friendly about your initial approach. You removed the text, without leaving any explanation, or any sort or suggestions on how I might be able to improve it. You only did this after I objected. I do not think you are as impartial as you think you are. As I said previously, all information can be manipulated so as to lead a reader to a certain conclusion. The fact that there are citations does not change this. As the old joke says, advertisers use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support not illumination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.52.145 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if you have been offended by the tone of my remarks. You are mistaken, though, in stating that I removed the text without leaving any explanation. See [[2]] - my edit summary explained "Pitfall - remove unsourced and POV paragraph." Those are the same reasons that I explained at greater length when you questioned my deletion of this material on the Talk page. Krakatoa (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, you don't help your cause when you say things like, "In your article there are many remarks that are subjective and unsubstantiated, such as ‘White has the advantage’. Who says White has the advantage? You also use weasel words such as a 'dubious reputation'." As 24.177.121.141 indicated, you either did not read, or ignored, my direct quotation of Kasparov/Keene and deFirmian, who indeed have stated that the Owen's "is currently considered insufficient" and is "viewed by theory as unreliable". My work on this article has been pretty much the antithesis of "subjective and unsubstantiated", and it does tend to get my hackles up when someone says that sort of thing about me. That doubtless affected the manner in which I responded. Even now you are accusing me of bias, without adducing a scrap of evidence, and are likening my use of authority to a drunk's manner of walking. I don't regard that as "helpful or friendly". Krakatoa (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I am sorry if I caused you offence. The joke about the drunk and the lamp post was just meant to get an idea across, and by no means did I want to belittle your seriousness. I believe that the inclusion of Bauer’s remarks make the article more balanced. Even small things can give an article a certain bias. For example, many people could conclude that Staunton’s ‘favourable comments’ made more than one hundred years ago, have been discounted by the ‘negative’ assessment of contemporary grandmasters, given that modern theory is considered to be more accurate. Perhaps this is not the case, but my point is that great care needs to be taken over such things. As I said, I think the article is great now and I hope that I have not tried your patience too much.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.66.47 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Name: Owen's Defence

John Owen an English vicar would of certainly known it was a defence. SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. Fischer Defence would look equally odd. See Talk:English Defense for a couple of failed attempts to fix a similar problem. Quale (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that Owen was a Brit, I also agree. Krakatoa (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomenclature

If Owen's Defence is to be defined as 1. e4 b6, then what name is given to 1. d4 b6 and 1. e4 e6 2. d4 b6? These are usually regarded as being "the same" defence since they almost always transpose to the same position. 2.25.130.227 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Matovinsky Gambit

At present somewhere in the region of a third of this article covers a variation called the Matovinsky Gambit (i.e. 3...f5??). Since 3...f5 is considered by theory to be an error, this section is really just a very long explanation of how to punish Black if he diverges from theory in this way. Thinking of other Wikipedia articles on chess openings it is highly unusual to go into this much detail on a 3rd move deviation from theory which basically loses by force.

Looking at the database at ChessTempo.com, the position after 3.Bd3 has occurred 3,472 times, after which the mainline, 3...e6, is played in about 82% of games, whereas 3...f5 occurs in about 1.5% of games and is actually the 6th most common move in the position. That being the case, I really don't see that extensive analysis to move 12 and beyond can really be justified on this line - especially as this is the only line of Owen's Defence covered in any real detail in the entire article.

Bauer dismisses this 3...f5 line in a single paragraph in 'Play 1...b6'. Of other recent sources, Lakdawala doesn't seem to cover it at all in '1...b6 Move by Move'. Odessky doesn't seem to cover it. Avrukh only covers it briefly to dismiss it. The sources mentioned in the current article relate to 1847 (Staunton), 1977 (Soltis) and 1982 (Kapitaniak).

I'm struggling to see how the section is of any use, given that no book on Owen's Defence has ever advocated that Black should play 3...f5, thus why would White need to know (in great detail) how to refute it? And, in any event, this is an encyclopaedia - why should it go into more detail on this line than any specialist work would ever appear to have done? To be honest, my feeling is that the entire section on the Matovinsky Gambit is completely disproportionate, relates to a triviality, and should be completely removed.

Does anybody feel strongly to the contrary?

(Incidentally the same could probably be said for the section on the Guatemala Defence (2...Ba6), which isn't really a subsection of Owen's Defence and seems to occur in less than 1% of games after 1.e4 b6 2.d4.) Axad12 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Now removed as per the above. Lengthy analysis of variations that occur so rarely, in an opening which itself occurs in less than 1% of chess games, cannot possibly be encyclopaedic. Axad12 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel very strongly to the contrary. User Axad12 doesn't seem to exist anymore. His deletion of the sections on the Matovinsky Gambit and Guatamela Defense was unjustified, and I have restored those sections. Both sections were thoroughly sourced, and there is no legitimate basis for deletion. The Matovinsky Gambit in particular (3...f5) has been discussed and played for hundreds of years, since the days of Greco and later Staunton. It was hotly debated in the 1970s. The junior Ken Regan (a future International Master) played it against the legendary Grandmaster William Lombardy in the 1974 U.S. Open and drew. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1739336 Today, in the era of super-strong engines, it has been refuted. But it remains of historical interest, and practical interest in that White players need to know how to refute it.

I don't know what Axad12's contention that this material "cannot possibly be encyclopaedic" means. Wikipedia has extensive written policies. If someone claims this material violates one of them, he should cite the relevant policy rather than offer his unsubstantiated opinion. Krakatoa (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Krakatoa, thanks for your notes.

The reasons I removed the Matovinsky Gambit section are very clearly outlined above. But to clarify:

1) It is not notable: i.e. it is barely covered in modern works on Owen's Defence. Wikipedia is not intended as a specialist text - its purpose is to give a concise description of a subject, based on modern treatments of the subject which are written by experts (in this case 21st century books on Owen's Defence / 1...b6). Wikipedia articles use those expert texts to determine what is notable.

2) It is very rarely played (1.5% of games in Owen's Defence take this line, according to openings databases). The fact that Ken Regan played the opening once as a junior does not change that observation. Can you name another Wikipedia chess opening page where the majority of the analysis concentrates on discussion of a variation played in only 1.5% of games in that opening? The reason that you can't is because rare and non-notable lines are not described in detail on Wikipedia.

3) We could argue on whether, as you say, there is really a 'practical interest' in White players needing to know a detailed refutation on an opening variation which occurs in only 1.5% of games in an opening which is itself played in only 1% of games (it seems to me that clearly there is not a practical interest). But really this point is academic because Wikipedia is not a 'How to' manual. Wikipedia does not set out to provide players of the White pieces in chess with all the information they will need to play those openings - that is the role of specialist texts.

If, as appears to be the case, you have a very strong interest in demonstrating how to refute very offbeat lines of rare openings, you might wish to set up a blog to discuss them. Wikipedia really isn't the place.

I have removed the material which I see that you had re-instated. I'd suggest that rather than engaging in an edit war you either wait for another editor to comment on the situation or quote actual Wikipedia policies to support your position (as I have done above). Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Krakatoa, just a note to say that I've recently mentioned this discussion over at the talk page for WikiProject Chess and invited other Wikipedia editors to express an opinion on how best to proceed. Trying to form some kind of consensus would seem the best way forward here. Axad12 (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, notability is a standard for deciding whether a given topic merits a standalone article, and has nothing to do with content within an article. The most relevant content policy in this case is the notion of due/undue WP:WEIGHT.

I agree that right now, the sections on 3...f5 (I have never seen the name Matovinsky Gambit and I'd like to know where it comes from) and the Guatemala Defence are too long. I'd suggest the following:

• Significantly cut down on the analysis of 3...f5. Mentioning Greco's game and the refutations 7.Qf5 and 8.Nf3 is OK, but further analysis should be pruned to a minimum. We can refer the reader to Soltis and Avrukh for the details.
• The Guatemala Defence is so rare that any analysis is unnecessary. Most readers would probably be more interested in knowing where the name comes from. I have access to Hans Cohn's Ajedrez en Guatemala and can add some first-hand information on the origins of the opening. Cobblet (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cobblet, I agree that you are basically correct. And, like you, I am concerned about the provenance of the name 'Matovinsky Gambit'.

However, I can't help but feel that in any other opening article there would be no more than a sentence given over to a line played as rarely as this. See, for example, Sicilian Defence where a lot of offbeat 2nd moves by White are covered in a sentence each (and that is a much longer article than the Owen's Defence article, and all of the more common Sicilian lines are covered there in appropriate detail prior to the sidelines being given their sentence each).

Same for the French Defence, where a rare line like 3.Nc3 c6 (Paulsen variation) gets a sentence.

So, anything more than a sentence in an article as brief as the one on Owen's Defence would look like undue weight to me on a line played only about 1.5% of the time after 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3. Axad12 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. But there are a couple of differences between 3...f5 and all the other rarely played lines you're talking about. The main difference is one of criticality.

We, like chess opening writers in general, don't waste space analyzing moves that fail to pose significant problems for the opponent. But it is worthwhile to spend some space to analyze moves that are critical to the assessment of a position, even if their refutation is well known and the move is rarely played as a result. I have in mind things like the Damiano Defence, 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 in the Petroff, 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed Nxd5 in the Two Knights, or the 4.e3 in the Albin. These are all rare moves because every experienced player knows they're bad, but the tactical refutation is not very obvious to a novice and therefore worth explaining. That's different from something like 3...c6 in the French or 2...Ba6 in the Owen's, where White can claim at least a small edge with any natural scheme of development.

If 3...f5 didn't have a tactical refutation, it would be an annoying move for White to meet. An informed reader would also be aware that 1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.e4 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 in the English Defence is worth taking seriously (even if that ultimately isn't so good either), so it's natural to ask why Black shouldn't consider the analogous 3...f5 here.

The fact that Greco considered 3...f5 is also noteworthy – surely that is the first recorded instance of Owen's Defence in chess literature? So 3...f5 has some historical importance as well, which the other sidelines you mention don't.

I get that the article is currently short, so these sections might stick out a little even after my suggested pruning. But if coverage of the main lines were expanded, then I think the coverage I'm suggesting for these sidelines is reasonable. It would not be productive to totally discard encyclopedic material just because the rest of the article isn't as well developed as it could be. That would not be improving Wikipedia.

Would it be all right with you two if I take a stab at condensing these two sections? Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I take your point, but in terms of critical responses, the Smith-Morra Gambit (about which several whole books have been written) only warrants 3 sentences in the Sicilian article. The Wing Gambit only gets 4 sentences.

I'd suggest that what is required here are a few sample lines of Owen's Defence covered after bullet points, the last of which would say something like: '3.Bd3 f5 is a dubious gambit, refuted by...' and then give a few moves out to move 6 or 7. That strikes me as being proportionate to the line's significance. Axad12 (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

But the Smith–Morra also has its own article, while 3...f5 does not. Also I think a well-written article on the Owen's would be significantly longer than what you're proposing – a few paragraphs on the main lines is entirely plausible. Compare our coverage of the Budapest Gambit for example, which is only slightly more popular than Owen's Defence. Cobblet (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with @Cobblet. I would recommend that we stick with notability as a criterion of importance, rather than popularity of the variation in play. Popularity is next to impossible to measure with confidence, as the great majority of games played are not recorded anywhere, let alone in published game databases. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the article in accordance with my suggestions above. Cobblet (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well done. That looks a lot more in proportion now.

Part of the issue here has always been that the coverage of the mainlines in the article is rather thin. I may try to add some extra detail there over the next few days if I can find the time. Axad12 (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Just added some further theory and diagrams as per the note above. I'm not hugely keen on (a) the rather long pre-existing quote from Christian Bauer (the contents of which are fairly obvious and could probably be said more concisely by not using a quote), or (b) the pre-existing paragraph on the Hippopotamus, which goes into more detail than is necessary given that the Hippopotamus has it's own linked Wikipedia article.

However, I've left them both in pending comments from other editors. Axad12 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Since there is an entry for Bauer in the Bibliography, all the citations of Bauer should use the sfn template. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I had a hard time with the line 3... f5 4.exf5 Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Bg7 7.Qf5 Nf6 8.Bh6. If I had not had my own copy of NCO, I would have been quite stumped by this. Although, I suppose, someone who has already read through the 7.gxh7+ line would see where 7.Qf5 Nf6 8.Bh6 is leading.

Separate issue: putting the single word "clearer" in quotes was intended, I assume, to indicate that it is quoted from Watson, but to me they looked like scare quotes. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)