Talk:Center Game

1. e4 e5 2. d4

Both this page and Danish Gambit consider only 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4. What name is given to the opening with these same first moves but where Black deviates at move two? 91.105.26.197 (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• 2...Nc6 Nimzowitsch Defence(1.e4 Nc6 2.d4 e5)
• 2...Nf6 3.Nf3 Petroff(Steinitz variation) (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4)
• 2...d6 3.Nf3 Philidor Defence(1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 )

So it transposes depending on the reply. SunCreator (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It can transpose, but it doesn't have to. After 2... Nf6 3. dxe5 you wouldn't say it's an Alekhine, because no-one would play 2. d4 in that opening. Similarly it's not really helpful to call 2... d6 3. dxe5 a Pirc. I think this opening should have some name, since even though it's a weak and uncommon opening it can be played, and (for instance when annotating beginners' games) it's useful to be able to refer to it. 91.105.52.22 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, 3. Qxd4 isn't essential for it to be defined as Center Game and the article considers other variations, so I'm going to change the diagram to show the position after 2... exd4. 91.105.50.116 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Who says? (What's your source?) --IHTS (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

3.Nf3

"3.Nf3 is very rarely played in the Center Game" doesn't seem accurate. In chessgames.com Opening Explorer, it was played 209 times, compared with 472 times for Qxd4. Dynzmoar (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. (Remember to just do it.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Center Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817144431/http://www.chessvibes.com:80/columns/finding-nepo-on-an-old-laptop/ to http://www.chessvibes.com/columns/finding-nepo-on-an-old-laptop/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Center Gambit

This can be used both for 3.Bc4 only and 2.d4 generally. Should we add a footnote? Dayshade (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Btw, nice idea putting both diagrams in the infobox. Dayshade (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thx. The text might confuse readers re when Center Gambit name applies. But your call. --IHTS (talk) 05:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Yet again a complete rewrite of a stable article in a single edit, including a redefinition of the topic

How are we supposed to follow what you're doing? This is the antithesis of collaborative editing. By the way the Soszynski book is self-published, and he's not a very strong player (FIDE rating 1800). I would be very wary of using this as a source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean good. Looks like he peaked over 2200 and the decline to 1800 seems to be due to inactivity after finding him on chessbase. Probably need to add a terminology section to explain the history behind the meaning of the name and related names like Center Gambit, but pragmatically we need this to cover all of 2.d4. Dayshade (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Stable means Wikipedia editors are broadly satisfied with it. Single-edit complete rewrites are arrogant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

None of my rewrites remove large amounts of pre-existing text, they merely split them up into more sections and expand by adding other sections. Plus I removed some inaccuracies (e.g. apparently someone added a ! to 5...Be7 over 5...Bb4). This article has received relatively little attention as it is a relatively obscure opening, so I think it's more that people just haven't been motivated to work on it. Anyway, let's focus on further improving the article as it stands. Dayshade (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a repeated pattern and you've been asked to stop doing this many times. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This wasn't a long article to begin with. At the very least this is a non-egregious example that did no harm well supported by additions of various sources and inline citations. Dayshade (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It's yet another example of your trademark terrible reorgs with section titles like "White's nth move alternatives". Alternatives to what? I'm not going to spend any energy on this article, it's bad enough that our flagship article has been thrown to the newbies. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

??? Dayshade (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm open to changing to "Alternatives to [insert pgn]" if you prefer. That just has very little precedent on other articles. But we can make there be precedent for it. And I realize you're talking about chess now. Dayshade (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)