Talk:Open Game

Double King's Pawn Opening

I propose that this page be moved to Double King's Pawn Opening. Any objections? --Matthew Proctor 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "Open Game" is much more commonly used. youngvalter 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, "open game" has always referred to a game that is open ie. lots of space, rather than an opening. Maybe I'm just wrong on this one. --Matthew Proctor 01:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The name "open game" dates from the 19th century and refers to everything after 1.e4 e5, since it was assumed those openings always led to the types of positions you're talking about. And everything else was a "closed game". Sometime afterwards somebody made up the term "semi-open game" for 1.e4 without 1...e5, and I've even seen "semi-closed game" being used for 1.d4 Nf6. Of course we know now that those are gross generalizations, but the names have stuck and are pretty well recognized (except for "semi-closed"). youngvalter 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Boungcloud Attack 2.Ke2?

I have deleted reference to the so-called "Boungcloud Attack", 2.Ke2?, because it is not notable. This "opening" was the subject of a previous article on Wikipedia, which after a vote for deletion was deleted on April 8, 2008. According to that article, the Boungcloud Attack was originated by a player on chess.com with a rating of 360, one of the lowest-rated players on that site (according to the article, one starts with a 1200 rating, so it presumably takes a lot of work to get down to 360). Of the 74,278 double king-pawn games on ChessGames.com, 2.Ke2? occurs (you guessed it) zero times. Without cracking a book, I feel safe in asserting that it is not to be found in any of the chess encyclopedias generally recognized as reliable sources (The Oxford Companion to Chess, Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, Sunnucks' The Encyclopaedia of Chess, etc. Apart from 2.Ba6??, 2.Ke2 is arguably the worst move on the board. Like its cousin the "King David Attack" against the Sicilian (2.Ke2?), which I deleted from the Sicilian Defense article for similar reasons, the Boungcloud Attack pretty much defines non-notability. Krakatoa (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Last month my daughter encountered this in a tournament: 1. e3 e5 2. Qe2. Who gets the right to name it? :-) And I see the Rook Lift opening from time to time: 1. h4 ... 2. Rh3 (and similar). Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there are lots of beginners who play a4 and h4 and roll out their rooks. As for 1.e3 e5 2.Qe2, it's almost a recognized line. 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 (hindering 2...d5 since Black won't be able to recapture with the pawn) is Chigorin's Variation of the French Defense. Krakatoa (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Van 't Kruijs Opening. I played against 1. e3 once in a tournament. Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to name 1. e3 e5 2. Qe2 the Queen Elizabeth version of the Van 't Kruijs Opening, after the QE2! Bubba73 (talk), 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! Eric Schiller would love your naming methodology! For him, 1.Na3 is the "Sodium Attack" since Na = sodium. Krakatoa (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Or 1. Nh3, the Ammonia attack, since Ammonia is NH3! Bubba73 (talk), 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, that is already used Amar Opening. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Réti Opening no more! From now on, 1.Nf3 is the Nitrogen Trifluoride Attack! And 1.Nc3 can be the North Carolina's 3rd congressional district Attack! OK, the latter one may not be that exciting a name. Krakatoa (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Tortoise Opening 2.Bd3?!

I have also deleted reference to the "Tortoise Opening", 2.Bd3?! as non-notable. That "opening" apparently appears on page 246 of Eric Schiller's 1998 book Unorthodox Chess Openings. See its index. Yes, that would be the same book that (as our article on Schiller notes) Tony Miles famously gave the two-word review "utter crap". Like the Boungcloud Attack, the Tortoise is not played in a single game of the 74,278 double king-pawn games (and 500,000+ total games) on ChessGames.com. To state the obvious, an opening that is never played is not notable. I do not think its mention in Schiller's book, which features a plethora of bizarre "openings" never seen in any more conventional source, makes it notable. Krakatoa (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now restored mention of the Tortoise Opening since admin Sjakkalle, despite grave misgivings about the opening's notability, has restored the article about it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Tortoise_Opening. Krakatoa (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It at least needs to be a redirect, in case someone types it in at the Search field. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle has apparently had a partial change of heart. He deleted the Tortoise Opening article and made it (again) into a redirect to this article. I've accordingly deleted the wiki-link in this article to the now-nonexistent article (i.e. this article mentions the T.O. but has no wiki-link). Krakatoa (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Link in Infobox

The link to Chessgames.com in the infobox seems like advertisement as the website charges 30$ a year for its services. The link is not a source and it does not add any value to the article, so it should be removed. I would do it myself, but I do not seem to be able to edit the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.3.102.175 (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The link also occurs in practically every chess openings article, and there are hundreds of those. So your proposal is better brought up at WT:CHESS. (But this has been discussed before. $30/yr doesn't negate the value offered by the website to WP articles. [You're wrong about the value offered.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can get the chessgames opening explorer page linked in this article for free. I'm not a member and I can go as deep as after White's fifth move (before Black's fifth) without paying. Quale (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Xmsk 2600:8801:3918:6C00:E19E:CB8F:2B54:8227 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Origin of name

Specifically came here to find out why it's called "Open Game", but that is missing. 2607:FB91:BD9F:157E:AC39:82F7:98F1:A892 (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Gee, do you think it might possibly be because an Open Game usually leads to an open game? --IHTS (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Should I add some diagrams back to the article?

I agree with the removal of the diagrams. But I'm not sure about adding some back to the earlier parts of the article, but leaning towards it. It might be nice to have subheaders inside e.g. 2.Nf3 Nc6, showing a few variations from the Ruy, Italian, Scotch, Four Knights, etc, as well as for the Petrov. Not sure if any more than that. Also, should Closed Game get the same treatment? Dayshade (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about the loss of the diagrams. I like the much lighter page, but I also think that beginners and people who aren't very facile with chess notation might find the openings much easier to visualize from diagrams than lists of moves. (Every time someone says, "I'm a visual learner", I cringe, but here I do actually think the diagrams can be very helpful for a beginner.) The good news is that there's no deadline. We can try the light page for a few weeks to see how we like it and diagrams can be added at any time--there's no rush. Quale (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose adding new diagrams, but this is supposed to be a summary style article, so I don't think it needs a lot of them. If someone wants to see a diagram of any particular opening they can just click through to the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely agree that we don't need any diagrams for every obscure early inaccuracy. If e.g. Ruy Lopez had a subsection, would you want the Berlin and Jaenisch to have their own diagrams there? Or keep it more minimalist with just the initial Ruy diagram only? Dayshade (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The "aerial view" of diags had value, especially for beginners. Reading & clicking aren't equitable substitutes, even the same info is fetched. --IHTS (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Could add back galleries but separated into the three sections. (instead of all at once) Dayshade (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. --IHTS (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we should just do the 4 most important per section? Now it looks a bit too long again. I also am not a big fan of having variations of the Italian all getting diagrams while variations of the Ruy don't (but not the end of the world). Dayshade (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Am not the editor who created them, and am not a "deletionist". But trimming what's not ref'd in the article seems logical. --IHTS (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Not going to revert but all those diagrams are of very marginal usefulness, especially for openings nobody plays like the Napoleon Opening and the Greco Defense. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, the article does say those aren't any good. IMO the aerial visual provides fast education for the uninitiated, ala "flash cards", better than interpreting notation or clicking out-of-article. --IHTS (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Max that it's worth considering whether the truly uncommon and bad openings deserve diagrams. Regardless, I don't like the sections introduced for the diagram galleries. I think the diagrams gallery should either be in a single section called Diagrams (the way it was before) or the diagrams galleries should be at the top of their sections before the text as a visual cue to what will be discussed. Separate sections for the galleries just adds clutter.

The captions should have all the moves of the opening. I don't think it's worth omitting 1.e4 e5 or even 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 just to make the captions a little shorter. Experienced chess players already know the moves, but newbies need the practice of seeing them. It makes interpretation of the diagram captions context dependent in an unnecessary and annoying way and they will break if the diagrams are moved. Looking back at the old gallery in May I see we (including I) also abbreviated the captions, although there only move 1 was omitted so the context was anywhere in the article. I guess I didn't notice or think about it then, but today I would change that. Quale (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of how it looks now? Dayshade (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Made the recommended accomodations prior to Dayshade re-introducing Elephant Game, etc, in evident pursuit of some magic re the number 4. --IHTS (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Open to taking the Elephant and Latvian back out, but they seem much more notable than the remaining second move alternatives for Black. Dayshade (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Last paragraph of intro

"remains the second most popular top-level response to 1.e4 (1...c5 is slightly more popular among tournament players)" - 1...e5 is probably still more common overall (i.e. below the master level), right? That's why I wanted to keep the "top-level" there, though it occurs to me it could suggest it's even less common than second when outside the top-level. Don't care about restoring the old wording but feel like we can probably reword this last paragraph. Any thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on the lede? I'm honestly skeptical that chess opening ledes should be so short, and leaning toward reintegrating a little more than I reintegrated. Even the current longer versions on a lot of articles are still much shorter than typical ledes on non-stubs. Also, "Open Games" in plural seems very common in literature over the singular, so I think it's best to use plural in the intro. Dayshade (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'm sympathetic to lots of people not benefiting from pgn in the lede, but I don't know if it's enough to warrant removing everything about continuations from ledes. Dayshade (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Lots of articles bold a plural version or some other modified version of their title, so I don't think it's an issue to use the plural, which seems far more common in literature. Disagree? Dayshade (talk) 03:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Might be a better example like the Anti-Berlin or the classical main line of the Ruy Lopez (could link it as "Closed Ruy Lopez" as well) than the Four Knights Italian for a closed Open Game. Dayshade (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

If you don't have a soure that says "This is an example of an Open Game that leads to a closed game", then it's original research no matter what example you use. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth tracking down an example or is the article better off without an example? It's a bit more difficult than for Closed Game, as you can't unopen an open closed game. Dayshade (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't imagine any chess writer writing such a thing. You're fixating. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

...you can't imagine any chess writer giving an example of an open Closed Game or closed Open Game? Seriously? Hooper and Whyld literally give examples of such lines. But the issue is that you can't force something to stay closed, so that's why not giving an example is fair too. Dayshade (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, you're fixating. The term "open game" (with or without uppercase) goes back to the 19th century when 80% of games started with 1.e4 e5 and were indeed almost invariably "open games". The term has stayed with us even as it has become less accurate, because that's just how it is. You need to become more comfortable with inaccuracy and ambiguity and different understandings and interpretations. Because that's just how chess terminology is. It's messy, and history is messy. Deal with it. And stop trying to add original research into chess articles and then arguing about it on talk pages because it's tiresome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

What? I don't disagree with any of that. I just wanted your reason for why it is not useful to give an example of a closed Open Game. And we're talking about if it's worth finding a cited example of a closed Open Game, you are being off topic. Dayshade (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I guess I am asking if you think examples of open Closed Games are more coherent than closed Open Games, and thus only "open Closed Game" is more worthy of having an example than "closed Open Game", or if the open Closed Game example should be deleted from that article. I am not sure, because an open position can't really be unopened, while a closed position can later be opened. Dayshade (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Stop trying to add original research to articles, and stop wasting people's time with endless talk page discussions. Over and out. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2026 (UTC)