Talk:Scholar's mate

Title

in my area, we always called the sequence "Blitzkrieg" after the lightning-fast german war tactics. i happen to think it's a pretty suitable name, but i wondered if anybody else has heard that name for it?

• See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blitzkrieg (chess strategy)

Xiong Chiamiov 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've actually heard it called the "terrorist attack;" Bruce Pandolfini referred to it thus in the opening tutorials for the Chessmaster PC games. I have no better source, unfortunately. Darthmix 23:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Black is the Scholar

Unfortunately in this page's current version of the mate, Black's motivation is less clear than this example: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5 and Black, seeing that his e-pawn is attacked, defends it with 3...Nc6 only to lose to 4.Qxf7#. I think this is why the line is called "Scholar's mate": It is not White, but rather Black who is the Scholar, who sees and responds to a threat but still fails, in contrast to the Fool who has no clue at all. --Wfaxon 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough. I did a double-take when I read the bit about 3. ...g6 being "fine for Black," because I've always seen 2. ...Bc5, and in that line 3. ...g6 fails badly: White can respond 4. Qxe5+, winning the rook. Another "scholarly" response for Black in this line is 3. ...Nf6, which sensibly attacks the queen but misses the checkmate threat. (Black's best response is to block both threats with 3. ...Qe7, then chase away White's queen at his leisure.) ~ CZeke 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• About the 3. ... g6 move, I've actually used that against somebody when opening with scholar's mate. But then my queen got stuck... o_o ZtObOr 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

But in all seriousness, I think the 2 Bc4 Bc5 example should be the one on the page. ZtObOr 04:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and added it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Animation

I removed the animation because it was superfluous. W/o it, the entry looks more tidy.

I think the animation is good because it shows a step-by-step process that eases understanding of the concept. I'm gonna replace the current image w/ the animation to make both of us happy. --Kevin [ [User_talk:Guitarmankev1|^(TALK)]] 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The animation is good, please keep. Nicolasdz 15:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the animation is nice. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg

The article stated in the first line that scholar's mate was "widely known" as blitzkrieg. I have moved this to the end of the article with the other alternative names. I've certainly never heard it called blitzkrieg (this discussion shows I'm not alone), and the Oxford Companion to Chess, for example, doesn't give it as an alternative name (it actually gives blitzkrieg as an alternative name for progressive chess). I think it's fine to list it in the article (it is referenced, after all), but putting it in the lead-in paragraph and making out that it's as widely used a term as "scholar's mate" itself seems to me rather misleading (I have similar doubts about "four move checkmate" to be honest, but at least that's not in the very first sentence). --Camembert 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• We've gone 'round this issue before. I think it's utter bullocks, but people involved with scholastic chess assure us that this is established usage in youth chess. I find the source weak and unconvincing. Anyone can write a book on anything, and Harvey Kidder is a chess writer totally unknown to me. If Hooper, Whyld, Reinfeld, Horowitz, Chernev, Burgess, Winter, Golombek, Kasparov, etc. would confirm it, I'd be OK with it, but corroberation of this usage is very hard to find. AFAIK, the listed book is the only reference the blitzkriegers can come up with. I'm disappointed to see Wikipedia promote what I consider to be a completely bogus usage, but there it is. Thanks for at least moving it out of the lede. (Why would "blitzkrieg" be a popular term among youth today anyway? That term had currency around WW II and is almost never used anymore.) Quale 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is in that reference (Kidder); I looked it up. Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a google search, and found a reference on the web, but Wikipedia says it is a blacklisted site. Bubba73 (talk), 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I learned it as Blitzkreig and had never heard the term Scholar's Mate until reading this article. There are a few minor web references, enough to show the term is at least used casually, which is pretty much what the article says. e.g., [1] [2], [3] and www.associatedcontent.com/article/286783/losing_a_chess

_game_in_two_moves_the.html?cat=11 (blacklisted). I won my first-ever competitive chess match in grade 2 using this tactic, only to have my 7-year-old opponent declare it a practice game. Roger (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I found that reference to the book by Kidder that uses "blitz" or "Blitzkreig", and I've heard a few people use it (with is wp:or). It doesn't seem to be very common, though. It may depend on the area. I've also heard people who should know better incorrectly call it Fool's mate. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Optimal Move List

I don't know if this is the "traditional" scholar's mate, but I find that a more optimal move list, in an actual game, is:

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6 4. Qxf7#

Notice how the bishop's move is before the queen's. If you use a move list like the one presented in an article, a more logical progression would be:

1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6

Therefore endangering the queen. If the white player insists in trying the scholar's mate, he will lose his queen with Nxh5. With the move list proposed above, you can fool the black player in playing 2. ... Nc6 instead of 2. ... Nf6 more easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereallarkas (talk • contribs) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. 2.Qh5 induces 2...Nc6 because it attacks the e5-pawn. 2.Bc4 encourages Blacks "best" move, 2...Nf6, since there's no immediate reason to defeind e5. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. --Thereallarkas (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Names around the world

The "Names around the world" section seems somewhat misleading. I assume the point is to describe translations of the term in different languages, but that would better be achieved by listing the translations by language instead of by country. For example, an Italian could use the term "Barber's mate" in Italian but would certainly say "Scholar's mate" when speaking in English. Similarly a person speaking in Italian would say "Barber's mate" regardless of whether they are in Italy or somewhere else. I think the section should really list languages instead of countries/regions. Jafeluv (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How would that work for the first item listed?:

In some regions, including France, Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Latin America: Shepherd's Mate.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

In some languages, including French, Turkish, German, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese: Shepherd's Mate.

Jafeluv (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh (I see your point). Yeah. (I'm guessing the text was trying to mean that, but failed.) I !vote go ahead and make the necessary changes. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jafeluv (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, any reason why Denmark/Danish is listed twice? Jafeluv (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor doesn't offhand know. (Would take digging into the src I suppose. Or one could check w/ the editor who added the content originally.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no article on da.wiki, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that the Danish term is "skolmagermat", ie. "shoemaker mate". Maybe someone has just assumed that it's the same term as in Swedish and Norwegian, which both use "school mate". Will need to find a reliable source for the term, though... Jafeluv (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that a Google search for "skolmagermat" is fruitless, as this is "skomagermat". Kamdenek (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Pandora's Box

One consequence of changing the main line from 2.Qh5 Nc6 3.Bc4 (as presented in the 1987 OCC entry for Scholar's Mate) to 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qh5, as was done today [4][5], is that now the best move 3...Qe7, "which [...] intends 4... Nf6 to gain a tempo on the h5-queen", never works out that way after 4.Nf3 (4...d6 5.Ng5). (See the Bilguer lines in ECO C23.) IHTS (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw this line in print in only one book, which gives 4. Nf3 Nc6 (defending the e5-pawn) 5. Ng5 (White really won't give up) Nh6. Then White has no way to step up the pressure and will soon have to pull his pieces back. Not too hard to add it to the text I guess. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

In what book? (The line & eval you added [6] s/ probably carry a ref.)

ECO C (1997) gives:

4.Nf3 d6 (4...Nf6 5.Qxe5 Bxf2+ 6.Ke2 Qxe5 7.Nxe5 Bb6 8.Bxf7+ Ke7 9.Bb3 d6= Bilguer) 5.Ng5 Nf6 (5...g6 6.Qf3! Be6 [6...Qxg5? 7.Qxf7+ Kd8 8.Qf8+ Kd7 9.Be6+! Kxe6 10.Qxc8+ Ke7 11.0-0!+/−; 6...Nh6 7.d3+/=] 7.Nxe6 fxe6 8.d3+/= Minev, Kajkamdzozov) 6.Qxf7+ Qxf7 7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bc4 h6 9.Nf3 Nxe4 10.0-0= Bilguer

Ok, IHTS (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, after 9...Nxe4, Larsen says Black has the advantage (Estrin, 3 Double King Pawn Openings, p. 7). More complexity, if 6.Bxf7+ (instead of 6.Qxf7+), then 6...Kd8 7.Qh4 Rf8 8.Bc4 Ng4! 9.0-0 Rxf2 (Estrin). IHTS (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird, I've certainly not seen the lines before and in fact it even evaluates the position after 6...Nh6 as +/=. Still, I'd call ECO more reliable than any individual author, especially one that's devoting space to Scholar's Mate (implying an amateur audience). I don't know what to make of the section. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, what book (ref)? p.s. I won't be editing this article. IHTS (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess, with a foreword by Dr John Nunn, first published in the UK by Robinson Publishing 1997, page 484. Burgess gives 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. Qh5 Qe7 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Ng5 Nh6, and says this: "Defending f7 once more. White has no way to increase the pressure and will soon have to back-pedal." Banedon (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thx. IHTS (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Another point re changing this article's main line from 2.Qh5 Nc6 to 2.Bc4 Bc5 ... Yakov Estrin describes 2...Bc5 as "ancient":

This ancient defense is quite playable, although less energetic than 2...Nf6.

— 3 Double King Pawn Openings (1982), Chess Enterprises Inc, p. 7.

And that was 34 yrs ago! Whereas 2...Qh5 has received new vigor as a result Hikaru Nakamura. So I'd suggest 2.Qh5 might be a more modern (not to mention more forceful, and less complex [per above]) way to get to a Scholar's mate, s/ a beginner want to try that/do that. (Which might be a common thing, right, and a reason why beginner player readers might access this article.) IHTS (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the third-most popular response to 2. Bc4 though [7], and "ancient" doesn't necessarily mean it's no longer being played it just means it's very old. In the same way, the Ruy Lopez is an ancient opening. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

My points are that 2.Qh5 is more modern,more forceful, and less complex way to get to a Scholar's mate. IHTS (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If a beginner player reads the article from wanting to try Scholar's, then 2.Qh5 is more forcing. If they read it from wanting to know how to defend against it, then 2.Qh5 is what they s/ probably see first (same reason, more forcing). IHTS (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, I don't think Scholar's Mate is something beginners should be encouraged to try, and even if they do try it, 2. Bc4 is the better way to go about it. 2. Qh5 is not only transparent, it leads to a worse game if the mate attempt is fended off. I don't have anything more to say, it comes down to what other editors think should be the main variation. Banedon (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps then, the main line s/b 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5. (Possible reasons: I think we agree White is more assuredly driven back after 3...Qe7 than after 2...Bc5 3.Qh5 Qe7; and per your openings link 2...Nc6 is also more common than 2...Bc5. [Curious thing re that, at article Bishop's Opening, 2...Nc6 isn't even presented, it only appears in an unreferenced list at bottom of subsec Bishop's Opening#Other Black responses.]) IHTS (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Banedon (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External link game showing example followup to defense beginning 3...g6 4.Qf3 Nf6

Banedon, please explain what part of WP:ELNO you think disallows the EL I added here that you reverted here. It links a game analysis that is relevant to article content, an application of the article recommendation for best line of defense to Scholar's (3...g6 4.Qf3 Nf6), and is too detailed for the article proper, which is what External link section is for. With Magnus Carlsen as Black the vid is well-done w/ over 2.3 million views, what is not to like? --IHTS (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The part above WP:ELNO. "Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" -- answer for this link is "no". There is less than 30 seconds of "game analysis" related to the opening. 2.3 million views doesn't matter since the content is barely relevant, plus the title of the video is shamelessly clickbait. Banedon (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The vid demonstrates how the best player in the world *continues* Black's play (i.e. strategy) after the article best line of defense. As a player, that has great value (is "useful, informative"), it helps complete understanding of an opening for practical use. The vid is "tasteful" and "factual"; as far as the title, I don't believe in changing an uploader's original title, I wouldn't reject the value this vid adds to this article on that basis. --IHTS (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. As mentioned the video has barely any analysis, most of it is just a bunch of moves, and the "focus" of the video (if any) is later in the endgame when White blundered a drawn position. I don't think it adds anything to the article. I'm going to notify WP:Chess, see what others think. Banedon (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Responding to the post at WT:CHESS. I think it's a little unclear. On one hand, it shows a top-level follow up to a line that is related to this topic. I think the crucial thing, though, is that this article isn't about games that start out e4 e5 bc4 nc6 qh5 and then go somewhere else other than a quick mate on f7 -- it's about that mate. The g6 line is relevant in terms of the "ways not to get mated" as usefully described in the article, but the theory of that opening and subsequent ideas seems like it makes more sense in the article we have about that opening, Danvers Opening. I think that once you move past that video's title, which seems framed for clickbait purposes, it's a video about Carlsen vs. the Danvers Opening and could possibly be a useful addition to that article (that it's a blitz game isn't great, but being Carlsen may make up for it). That's nothing against the quality of its content, of course -- just that I think its relevance is limited to this article, but might be appropriate for the other article. I don't object to the idea of a YouTube video, or an analysis on YouTube, or even a video from this person FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO the youtube link does not add anything of value to the article. White clearly did not expect to catch Carlsen in a 4 move checkmate, he just wanted to get out of main lines... and it was just an internet blitz game. Besides, the defence used by Carlsen (2...Nc6, 3...g6, 4...Nf6) is already covered by the article text. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with User:Rhododendrites and User:MaxBrowne2. By coincidence, although I am not familiar with what's available on YouTube for chess, I had heard of Suren, who is apparently a popular YouTube chess publisher -- 32M views, 70K subscribers, according to what I read (not necessarily reliable). I wonder if we should have an article about him. But I don't see an easy way to hang this video off the Scholar's Mate article.

Looking at the article on Danvers Opening, I wonder if it should be updated to mention Carlsen's loss (with White) in the recent World Rapid. That game, more than Nakamura's game, had a genuinely theoretical look to it -- Carlsen seemed to get a good game out of the opening. Who would have thought that 2. Qh5 would look interesting at the top level. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Youtube videos are probably not the best ELs in general, and in this case, there's very little of it that is relevant to the article at all. I can't really think of a reason why this article would need any ELs to videos, but certainly not this video. --SubSeven (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with other commenters that this video is probably more adequate for the Danvers Opening article, mainly because it is Carlsen playing against it. Not so much here since, as others have pointed out, it just glances over the Scholar's mate.--Gorpik (talk) 09:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Resolved I think there is a clear consensus that the youtube link is not needed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Early 2021 Edits, Scholar's & Fool's, vis-a-vis Beale

I've recently edited the present article and the closely-related Fool's Mate article to indicate historical origin of each article's titular phrase. It turns out that both are found in Francis Beale's 1656 adaptation of Greco's text. The origin of both phrases (and the chosen, uncited game examples in the old wiki articles) have been mysterious to me for years (because no cites/clear historical context in the central sections during that time!), and Beale seems to be a satisfactory historical explanation of both title-usages (Fools'/Scholar's), and the gameplay examples themselves, though very slightly different from what has historically obtained on wiki. This is why I am strongly inclined to rework both articles in Beale's terms, which I suspect informed the (slightly different) years-old examples in both cases-as some uncited historical accretion.

At my talk, Bruce leverett indicated that there are lower details that would have to be changed to accommodate, and also expressed reservations. I agree that an article's details should be consistent, and in this case, yes, I think it's worth the changing to accommodate the clear historical example (source) where none was explicit before, which I am introducing. Where does it come from? Why do we call it 'Scholar's mate' in the first place? Is there a source? Beale provides the answer, with a certain specific version of the mate which I think should therefore be followed. I am strongly inclined to rework the basic example of Scholar's Mate in the article to match Beale's example (permuting moves of white queen and bishop). I've already carried this out in the lead, and as Bruce indicated, this would need to be continued to fix any existing factual errors downstream in the article, which I'll start looking at.MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Banedon: In the process of reorganizing the article to deal with the citation of, and quotation from, Beale, I deleted some material about how to prevent Scholar's mate when White has played 2. Bc4. I don't remember my full rationale, and I don't object to your recent changes to restore some of that material. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it Scholar's mate with a lowercase m or Scholar's Mate with an uppercase M? The article can't seem to decide which. The Fool's mate article has a similar problem with inconsistency. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

These terms have been around for many years. I don't know of any good reason to use uppercase 'M'. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you expected to accomplish by informing me of the duration for which these terms have existed, but okay. I'm also not sure what you expected to accomplish by informing me that you don't know of any good reason to use an uppercase M; I would have preferred that you tell me about the things that you do know, not the things that you don't. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

---

• Scholar's mate → Scholar's Mate
• Fool's mate → Fool's Mate

– capitalization conforms to general usage ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hi, are these 2 not nouns? Dr. Vogel (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Proper nouns, in this case. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Are they? That doesn't seem obvious to me. In fact I largely see them uncapitalized when I google it. Endwise (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• "General usage" is a bit vague, and capitalization can be contentious on Wikipedia, so contesting. This should be discussed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not convinced that these are proper nouns that should be capitalized. Dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com do not capitalize them. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:NCCAPS/MOS:CAPS says we should capitalize this only if it's consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Ngrams do not suggest this to be the case. (And the standard caveat applies that ngrams will tend to overstate the degree of capitalization because it is indexing not just running text, but also titles, section headings, etc.) Colin M (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I mostly see these uncapitalised in sources (see e.g. Rreagan007's and Colin M's comment above), and I don't think there's a Wikipedia-specific MOS/NCCAPS reason these should be capitalised. Endwise (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not capitalized in The Oxford Companion to Chess either, as pointed out on the Wikiproject Chess talk page. Cobblet (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:GAMECAPS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose a lot of chess terms are capitalized due to the "Common Use" rule in ways that don't quite follow general Wikipedia style guidance. There is a certain argument that these should also be over-capitalized for consistency. On the other hand, if the chess sources don't capitalize these terms, we shouldn't either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.