Talk:List of ECO codes

Main article column

A suggestion - instead of a "main article" column, have a "common name" column. The item in this column may or may not include a wikilink. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I prefer "Main article" because I think "Common name" will encourage people to assign a name to every code. This is what has happened in the list of chess openings. As you pointed out here, the ECO itself does not use opening names at all, only codes, aiming to be language independent. Are there any particular opening names you would like to add? We can use Template:Anchor to link to specific parts of articles. Khiikiat (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

At least it won't lead to stupid meme openings being spammed. For the King's Indian Defence, for example, we could use names/descriptions along these lines. King's_Indian_Defence#ECO_codes. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I am going to improve the third column, but I want to finish what I am doing in the second column first. Khiikiat (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

In general, I understand using the 1st ed. and noting differences in the 3rd ed., but I think that's backwards. The article should follow 3rd and note differences with the 1st. Almost no one coming to this page will find the historical info as important as the current, and the importance of the historical will continue to diminish in the future. That said I appreciate the large amount of work you're putting into this page. Quale (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to start with the original codes because I think they are still influential. For example, 365chess.com still uses the original codes. Khiikiat (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

So using the B07 example, how was 1.e4 d6 2.f4 classified by the first edition of ECO? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a very interesting question. It's not clear to me that 1.e4 d6 2.f4 can be classified using the first edition, because B00 seems to exclude all lines beginning 1.e4 d6, but B07 is only for lines beginning 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6. Khiikiat (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

And yet 2.f4 is a perfectly reasonable and not so rare move. Ivkov and Larsen for example have played it. Of course a transposition to some other ECO code is a likely result. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation why you choose to feature the 1st edition. I trust your judgment. Quale (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

British vs. U.S. English

The consistent use of British English is leading to anomalies. We are linking to Centre Game, but that is a redirect to Center Game. Likewise we are linking to Benoni Defence, but that is a redirect to Benoni Defense. I haven't checked for more like this, but I suspect there are many, because most of the openings articles were started by U.S.-based editors. What is the right thing to do for a list article like this? My instinct would be to always link directly to the article, but if there is some Wiki policy that says not to do it that way, then we shouldn't, I suppose. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Many of the links are redirects. Some are redirects to articles; others are redirects to sections of articles. It was my intention that the third column should contain links to further information. I don't think the link needs to be exactly the same as the article or section title. I think it is more important to maintain a consistent style per MOS:CONSISTENT (centre, defence, the chess player's name without 's, etc). I don't think it is necessary to bypass the redirects (WP:NOTBROKEN). Khiikiat (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not as concerned with consistency of AmE and BrE spellings because chess players will see Defence/Defense all the time and I'm not bothered by a mixture even on the same page, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that the list should use consistent spellings. In the past I used to try to bypass all redirects, but as you say, that isn't considered a best practice so I stopped. Quale (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:CONSISTENT says,

Quotations and titles of works (such as books, films, and music) should be given as they appear in sources.

This presumably includes titles of Wikipedia articles. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Not so sure that applies to titles of wikipedia articles. It's not a reliable source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

As Max says, I don't think that applies to titles of Wikipedia articles except in the proper name case that is the second bullet of MOS:CONSISTENT. I think the letter of the rule is what Khiikiat said. It suggests that we shouldn't normally spell some wikilinks "Defence" and others "Defense" within a single article, but that's the thing I'm not very concerned about. Some pages such as Semi-Open Game list a lot of openings and whether to use AmE or BrE in the links seems so arbitrary I think I just tried to use the titles of the articles as they are rather than rewriting them to consistently use AmE. Quale (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought Max was joking. The suitability of a "work" for use as a reliable source obviously has no bearing on how we should spell its title. It's easy to understand that most works of music are not suitable for use as reliable sources. But the same holds for books and films.

When we link to an article in Wikipedia, we can usually get away with using our own favorite variety of English, because if it's not the author's variety, someone has probably created a redirect, or we can create one ourselves. However, this is not a good practice. There are redirects to help you find Love's Labor's Lost or Theory of Colors, but if I used them, readers would judge that I was ignorant or careless.

I see, however, from following up on some links in Semi-Open Game, that we are overall very careless about varieties of English in the openings articles, sometimes using both "Defense" and "Defence" to describe the same variation in the same article. I should refrain from trying to fix this at this late date. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

There's a policy, however arbitrary, on this. Whoever first establishes the variety of English to be used, that's what we go with. In the case of articles with strong national ties, we might overturn the original variety of English (after establishing consensus), but normally we just MOS:RETAIN. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Good point, Max's comment is a humorous jab at the unreliability of our (the collective our, I do a miniscule amount) work. That went right over my head as I thought he was making the technical point that WP doesn't qualify as a WP:RS for WP. I wouldn't describe my admixture of opening names in AmE and BrE as "careless", rather I would say I'm casually indifferent about the spelling of defense in those links. Normally I try to link to chess opening articles directly and don't bother to pipe the links to enforce consistent spelling of defence/defense. I certainly don't begrudge anyone who does think that consistent spelling of those links within an article is important, and I think they are in alignment with the guidelines and I am not. I do agree other kinds of consistency are important including date formats and spelling of defense in the article text outside those chess opening links. My practice concerning consistency is inconsistent. Quale (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Main article column

I would like to raise a concern regarding the current redirect from “List of chess openings” to “List of ECO codes”, and the way this affects reader expectations and usability.

Historically, List of chess openings functioned as a concept-oriented overview, organizing openings by families and ideas (e.g. Open Games, Semi-Open Games, Flank Openings). By contrast, List of ECO codes is a technical classification based on the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings.

While these two topics are closely related, they are not equivalent. A concept-based list and a code-based index serve different purposes and audiences:

- Conceptual lists help readers understand relationships, themes, and structures between openings.

- ECO codes are primarily a reference tool for standardization, databases, and advanced users.

At present, the redirect causes a semantic mismatch: readers clicking “List of chess openings” are presented with a purely code-based table, which does not fully satisfy the expectation created by the page title or by links in sections such as “See also”.

I would like to suggest one of the following possible improvements:

- Restoring List of chess openings as a separate, concept-oriented page, with a clear link to List of ECO codes for technical classification; or

- Adding a substantial introductory section or companion page that organizes openings by families and ideas, explicitly distinguishing this from the ECO system.

This would improve accessibility for non-expert readers while preserving the precision and verifiability of the ECO classification. It would also align with Wikipedia’s educational role by offering both a human-oriented overview and a technical reference, rather than conflating the two.

I’m interested in hearing other editors’ thoughts on whether this distinction could be reintroduced in a way consistent with Wikipedia’s content guidelines. Harlequin69 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem with "List of Chess Openings" was that included so much junk. Names used only on the internet with no historical precedent, some of them no more than memes like Bongcloud Attack, Coca Cola Gambit. Us old guys who edit chess articles are trying to resist the chess.com-ization of Wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the rationale — I understand and largely agree with the concern about removing unsourced or purely internet-meme opening names.

However, I think two separate issues may be getting conflated:

1. Content quality and notability, and
2. Conceptual organization versus technical classification.

Removing poorly sourced or ahistorical names (e.g. meme-based labels) is absolutely appropriate and consistent with Wikipedia standards. That said, this problem does not inherently require replacing a concept-oriented overview with a purely ECO-based index.

A curated List of chess openings does not need — and arguably should not — include every nickname used online. It could instead focus on historically established openings and well-documented families (Open Games, Semi-Open Games, Indian Defences, Gambits, etc.), with clear sourcing and editorial standards.

The ECO system is an excellent technical reference, but it serves a different purpose than a human-oriented overview of openings by idea and structure. Redirecting List of chess openings entirely to List of ECO codes creates a semantic mismatch: readers expecting a conceptual map are presented with a classification table.

In other words, resisting “chess.com-ization” does not require abandoning conceptual structure — it requires better curation. A concept-based list and an ECO-based list can coexist, each doing its own job well.

Would it be reasonable to consider restoring List of chess openings as a curated, sourced overview (excluding meme names), clearly distinguished from List of ECO codes as the technical index? Harlequin69 (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I took the discussion to WT:CHESS. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

YES, I totally agree with you.

The problem with the ECO list page now is that it clears out mostly all of opening themes and structures. It is nothing more than listing a bunch of moves from the encyclopedia and leaving it there, which is what you get if you just buy the ECO book. And some opening developments are seperated in discrete blocks, such as the Benoni Defense stucture is presented in both A43-A44 and A56-A79. Wiping out the connection between the related code makes it hard to follow and further less useful for viewer.

The old 'List of Chess Openings' page has junk and miscredits, TRUE. But at least we had the clues to research deeper and switch between structures, other than just read and remember the moves already put IN ORDER as in the ECO. Furthermore, all the memes origin and miscredits can also be further noted or edited.

Honestly I don't have a problem if the 'List of ECO codes' page had enough information, at least in other language pages they showed names of the book from A to E. Can we just keep the 'List of Chess Openings' page until the ECO page content is upgraded and then we can merge two pages later? Erase all of those is just really childish behavior in my opinion. ~2026-99236-3 (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Table redesign

I appreciate the effort, but I'm not convinced it is really an improvement. It looks kind of awkward. By the way it still has errors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to do — and prefer — the redesign because the very large number of empty, unfused cells do not appear to be linked to any opening at all, so that a reader without a really good memory might not be aware of what opening the longer [derived] lines is named or is a variation of.

With the merged cells this problem is eliminated, and the extra column of course allows for identification of specific named variations of a particular opening. Luokehao (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the extra column actually makes it easier to find specific lines, we all know how to use Ctrl-F right? But other opinions are welcome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a list of ECO codes, not names (which do not appear in the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings). Your redesign made the table unsortable. The second column of the table is designed to be sortable so that people can easily find the correct code for a given line. Khiikiat (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2026 (UTC)