Talk:Scotch Game

Animated gif

Isn't an animated gif better then this chess diagram? Vadimka, 21:57 (CET), 20.09.06.

No, definitely not. Too distracting, and being able to look at the branching position is important for the reader trying to follow through the variations discussed. 84.69.195.70 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that the most popular (and arguably most dangerous) line for white in this opening is not mentioned:

e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 ed Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bc e5

Oh well. :)

Re-rating article as Mid importance

The article was rated as being of "High" importance. I've re-rated it as "Mid" importance. I don't think the Scotch is nearly as commonly played (and thus important) as its competitors the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, and Two Knights Defense. Although Kasparov did play it in a few World Championship games against Karpov, Short, and Viswanathan Anand some years ago, it has not caught on. Note also that Fischer played Alekhine's Defense twice against Spassky in their 1972 match, and that's just rated Mid-Importance, and Spassky played the Hippopotamus Defense twice against Petrosian in their 1966 match, and that's rated Low-Importance. Thus, merely being played a few times at world championship level can't be enough to merit a "High". Despite the now-retired Kasparov's occasional advocacy of the Scotch (much like Fischer's occasional advocacy of Alekhine's), I would classify it the same as Alekhine's: an offbeat opening that is occasionally, but not often, seen in high-level games, meriting "Mid" importance. Krakatoa (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that it (the Scotch) is played far more than the Giuco Piano and the Two Knight's Defend at an elite level. 5 games at the recent Tata Steel Super-GM tournament were played in the Scotch for example --109.76.106.120 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Göring

I am removing the line mentioning Herman Göring as a "first World War Ace". Göring was more famous as a Nazi leader and I think he is irrelevant to a chess article, whether or not he was related to a chess player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcmullin (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant to this article either. Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Göring gambit

Isnt 6... d5 the proper way to play, instead of 6... d6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoreb (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After Black has accepted the gambit, ...d7-d5 doesn't work because e4xd5 hits the c6-knight and Black cannot recapture with either queen or knight, so Black ends up giving away a pawn for not a lot. For instance in the two-pawn gambit, 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 d5?! 7.exd5 followed by 0-0 and Re1 is very strong for White. I don't think the line 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bc4 d5 is any better.

The idea of ...d5 only works when played immediately at move 4, so that 5.exd5 can be met with 5...Qxd5, or delayed with 4...Nge7 preparing 5...d5 and if 6.exd5, Nxd5. Tws45 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what others think of the Göring Gambit section now, I've expanded on it quite a bit (I've taken a strong interest in the line from an early age and have played it a lot with White recently, so am familiar with most of the variations). I've had to rely upon web sources to back up what I wrote, for although I own copies of Muller & Voigt's "Danish Dynamite" and Emms's "Play the Open Games as Black", I don't have them on me at present for inline citations. Do people think the section is disproportionately detailed or could potentially warrant its own page?Tws45 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams

I don't know about others, but on my computer screen the section "Main variations" is too crowded because of the diagrams and the text squashed like sardines in a can. Could the readability there be improved? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried something (how is now?). Curious: can you tell your screen's dimension? (Mine is 1280 x 1024.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1024×600. I have now placed the diagrams into the sections that they relate to, which makes more sense to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Main line 4.Nxd4

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Scotch Gambit 4.Bc4

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Göring Gambit 4.c3

I don't think I understand the complaint. Previously the diagrams were in a row, three abreast, with the variations listed below. I didn't see anything crowed or squashed together. Now I think it is worse, as the diagrams often won't be in the sections they pertain to. This is especially noticeable on wide screens (I often use 1920x1200), although you could reasonably suggest that a full-screen browser window at high resolutions makes line lengths too long in general and isn't ideal for reading. The original page arrangement had the diagrams in a table which forced three columns, but the stacking technique I tried above should adapt to the screen width. At about 680 pixels wide and below, the diagrams should be in three rows. From 680 to about 920 there should be two rows, and the first row should have two diagrams. Above 920 all three diagrams should be in the first row. I think that older versions of IE didn't flow the the diagrams correctly and would always have the three diagrams in a single row using scroll bars if necessary, but modern versions of IE should be OK. You can try this by resizing your browser to see if the diagrams flow. Another example of this is Slav Defense. The sections there are very short so the diagrams would not fit well floated in the sections for any but the narrowest of screens. I think the diagrams together form a nice visual key to distinguish the variations (a gallery of sorts), and breaking them up across the article dilutes this. Quale (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Slav Defense page is different because the seven grouped diagrams there are not accompanied by any text to their left or right side. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toccata I don't understand your last, since after the change I made above, the text appeard first, followed by a row of diagrams w/o any text to either side. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed at the main chess article, Chess#Movement, rows of 3 diags are also used to explain chess moves, w/ text to the left. Does it create a "squished" presentation on your screen there also? (Perhaps the org w/ be vertical there then instead of text to one side!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no problems there, since the text is found above and below the diagrams. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5.Ng5?! in the Scotch Gambit is weak

It violates all sorts of opening principles and White has zero advantage after 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 (not an exclam worthy move) Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5. White has only the queen "developed" and he'll have to move it again soon. If he wastes any more time, as in the well known Meek-Morphy game, he'll be in trouble. Unsurprisingly the stats from human games after 9.Qxc5 are in Black's favour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5.Ng5 is a pretty obscure line, does it even warrant inclusion? --IHTS (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's turned up in GM games recently, presumably White just wants to get through the opening without playing for advantage. It's not as bad as Pachman (and I) thought it was. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Haxo Gambit into Scotch Game

I don't see enough sources dealing with this independently, maybe this makes more sense to have as a section to the Scotch Game article (since this is a variation of that) ? Thoughts welcomed!! Sohom (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Haxo Gambit doesn't merit a separate article (nor does Bxf7+ merit 2 exclams). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable sources for the name, AfD is appropriate. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is Standard_Chess_Openings - Eric Schiller and another Russian title besides a bunch of youtube videos (which I assume are unreliable), so not complete source free but nothing substantial and definitely nothing that does not discuss it in the context of the Scotch Game. Sohom (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schiller is a poorly regarded author with a tendency to invent unnecessary opening names not used by any of the standard reference books. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haxo Gambit. The article has no value, and the name is a recent internet phenomenon originating from the notoriously unreliable Eric Schiller. 5.c3 is simply a main line Scotch Gambit; 5...Nf6 is a straight transposition into the Giuoco Piano; 5...dxc3 while not best is not an error or a "trap for beginners". The whole article is just junk. If there are one or two sentences of value they can be incorporated into Scotch Game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Edit: I removed the junk, and honestly there's very little usable content left. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) P.P.S. here is a link to a review of Standard Chess Openings from the excellent (but moribund) chesscafe website. The reviewer is scathing of the book, and mocks the use of the name "Haxo Gambit". [1]. For some reason the name took off on line, probably influenced by chess.com and lichess players who read terrible books. Still, neither chess.com, lichess, chessgames, 365chess or any online database should be considered reliable sources on opening names, let alone youtube. Wikipedia needs to resist these "internet names" not found in reliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It is just a variation FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should do this by the book. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haxo Gambit MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

should we make Napoleon Gambit a separate, stub article, or add a small section here?

It was previously WP:BLARed, but there appears to be enough individual notability to me for more than a passing mention. Maybe not enough for an article (hence the small section suggestion), but definitely not doing the (admittedly, dubious) opening with some encyclopedically relevant and interesting history behind it justice. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is no. Just a subsection here will do fine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my gut said the same. But, I threw both on the table just to see what others thought. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added something on it. If anyone wants to improve it, please do. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced it even needs a separate section. It's a bit silly not to retake the pawn. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it could be refactored or moved into something else. Do you have any ideas on a place we could merge the section into, or make it a smaller section? I agree it's dubious and garbage, and falls apart under any line at all without the bishop sac, but more than a single passing mention from an encyclopedic perspective rather than a chess perspective.

Kind of where the idea to make a separate stub and link it came from.

We could just revert it all together too.

I just added a starting point, if you wanna remove it or merge it into another section, feel free. Something more than a passing mention was all I thought was warranted. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]