Talk:Semi-Italian Opening

Where to merge that article

So the result of the AfD debate was that this page should be merged indeed, but it was unclear whether this should be in the Italian game or in the Philidor. I am opening this thread to clarify that. I own a book "Everything on The Philidor Defence" from Christian Bauer that states that after "1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Nc6?! comes back to an inferior version of the Italian game, and is not part of the Philidor anymore" (p.16). SyG (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree not part of Philidor. The consensus to merge was at a point where the article consisted of scant material (really nothing more than a name and defining moves). Could consensus to merge perhaps have been based on that? (The fact the article consisted of virtually no material, was just a reference, and didn't warrant its own article?) After the AfD concluded the article was significantly increased in content, size and scope. Why cannot the article then be considered under those new conditions for carrying its own weight?

For example, Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation is not merged with Vienna Game. Why not? It is a rare line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4. Why isn't Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit merged with Four Knights Game? It is also a rarified line: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nxe5. Why isn't Giuoco Piano, Jerome Gambit, a weak and rare line, merged with Giuoco Piano?: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Bxf7+. I'm sure there are many more examples like those. So why should Paris Defence be treated any differently than these, when the article is now at this point of containing respectable content? (What is the criterion for merge, and is it being used consistently? Is it because the three examples given are gambits, and Paris is not? Is it because two of the examples carry colorful names, and Paris does not?)

Again at the point of the AfD, Paris had essentially no content. I can understand merge based on insufficiency of meaningful content to claim its own article. But the status of the article is radically different from what it was at the conclusion of the AfD. If merge was based on the context that the article, because of its scant material and being merely a reference, didn't warrant an article, well, that context no longer exists. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

More examples ... Here's a third move Black option of Italian that has its own article: Italian Game, Rousseau Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 f5). And another third move Black option with its own article: Italian Game, Blackburne Shilling Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4). (In this article the opening is called "dubious", 3...Nd4 is described as a "weak, time-wasting move", yet the line carries its own article, and at Chess Project Talk, where Paris was discussed for AfD, part of the justfication given was Paris is "just a rare and not very good sideline". It seems several rare, and even "not very good" sidelines already do have their own articles. But Paris was selected by Alekhine, and is a form of the Hungarian Defense acc. Harding/Botterill, and so is different because not in the "weak, dubious" camp, etc.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I moved the 3...d6 (Paris) subsection from "Main variations" section to "Uncommon Black third moves" section of Italian Game, where 3...Nd4 (Shilling Gambit) subsection already was. Also added 3...f5 (Rsousseau Gambit) subsection to that section. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. The thing is, are there references that call this opening the "Paris Defence" ? Because apart from the notability issue, there is also the question of whether this name really exists at all. SyG (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SyG, as mentioned in the AfD, in book Batsford Chess Openings (BCO), publ. 1982 by American Chess Promotions, authors Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, chapt. "Giuoco Piano (Italian)   2 Knights", p. 308, the move 3...d6 is superscripted with a footnote. The footnote, contained on p. 309, says one and only one thing; it says: "Paris Defence."

Also in the AfD, user SubSeven found this online ref to the name, in a book by Pandolfini.

The opening goes by other names as well, which I duely noted in the article's infobox. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Thanks for the note. Then it is back to notability. SyG (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SyG, the AfD result was Keep. The closing admin said Merge is a function of article Talk, not AfD. Nevertheless, there was consensus for Merge at AfD (discussed above). What are you saying? (You like to start all over again from square one?! If so, on what basis?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

AFAIU, the closing admin said the article should be merged, but where to merge was not clear. The decision to merge should not be based on content, but on notability. My intent was to discuss where to merge this article, but it seems you are challenging the fact that this article should be merged, am I correct ? SyG (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

SyG, you seem to be ignoring everything I've written and asked you to consider, above. For example, I gave several examples of other minor sidelines (some not so good) that support their own articles, and I asked what the consistent criteria for merge is? (No response.) Also, that the article's content and scope were radically changed since the end of the AfD, and I asked if the former condition (i.e. no content but merely a reference) was perhaps a basis for the consensus to merge. (Again, no response. Do you mean to speak for others and say that its minimal condition at the time of AfD was *not* a factor in recommendations to merge?)

In the AfD, it was stated the line was "not an opening". That was wrong. It was also stated the line was weak. That was also not really right. It was also asserted the name "Paris" didn't exist in any literature. Also not correct. It was also asserted the line was an offshoot/transposition of/to Philidor's Defence. That was also really not right. And so on. All of those comments then were aimed at figuring the article's notability. Since the time of those comments, I radically changed the scope and content of the article. You seem to be ignoring all of that, instead only valuing comments made when the article topic was virtually unknown, and clearly misunderstood, as though those erroneous observations then, have more validity, than the corrrected understanding about this line now. So I can't understand the validity of your arguments, it seems you are creating arguments no matter how invalid, only to satisfy your predisopsition goals for the article. You asked if I'm challenging merge. I asked questions regarding on what basis merge obtained a consensus, seeing that the content and scope of the article at that time was radically different than now, and seeing that many misconceptions about the line have hopefully been cleared up now, from before. I also asked questions about criteria to merge (what are they?) and if said criteria are being consistently applied or not, quoting other similar examples as a basis for that Q. You can see there have been no attempt to answer those questions, yet, you want to question beyond it, asking if I'm challenging, when I was questioning. (If you notice, I didn't even register vote in the AfD! So to suppose I'm challenging now, would be inconsistent, wouldn't it. I'm not !voting or "challenging" a !voted result, rather I'm contibuting thoughts & considers. I'm sure anyone can see how I stand on the issue anyway, so to ask for clarification where I stand is really superfluous, isn't it.) I've really talked and responded to all of *your* challenges to death; I tend to think there will be no end to this. So I really won't entertain discussion further, unless the dialogue smacks of better logic. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

From OCC, Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 365: "Semi-Italian Opening, also known as the Half Giuoco Piano, Lesser Giuoco Piano, or Paris Defence. Black plays 3...d6 insead of 3...Bc5, leading to play not unlike that in the Hungarian Defence." --IHTS (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Legal Trap/Mate

should the Legal Trap be added on to this article? --Rayous (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents: It's tempting since Paris seems to be a major entry point into Légal, but that article is generic (an example of the Trap instigated by Black is included, etc.) so would be hard or confusing to merge. I could see a mention/ref though (e.g. "If 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.h3 – see Légal Trap"). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --IHTS (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sozin's "="

Good eye, Tardis.key! Either Sozin assessment ("=") was flawed or this was misprint in Harding/Botterill and probably carried over by Unzicker to ECO C II. I've copyedited (mate is hardly "slight improvement" over =!) and kept your refutation for context. (Is it WP:OR? IMO no since provable OTB. So I would label it editorial insert. [I think choices were that, or eliminate the published Sozin analysis altogether. IMO the former is better.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move

This article probably properly belongs under name "Semi-Italian Opening": BCO (1982) calls it Paris Defence; Horowitz (1964) calls it "Half" Giuoco Piano and "Lesser" Giuoco Piano; the OCC (1987) has the entry under Semi-Italian Opening and says "also known as the Lesser Giuoco Piano or Half Giuoco Piano". In addition, the Giuoco Piano has alternate name Italian Opening (whereas Italian Game on WP is prior to 3...Bc5). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 365: "Semi-Italian Opening, also known as the Half Giuoco Piano, Lesser Giuoco Piano, or Paris Defence." --IHTS (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Name

@Ihardlythinkso: I noticed Euwe and Meiden use this name for 3...h6 ("P-KR3") in Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur on page 103. I think I've only ever seen only one source other than H&W use the name for 3...d6. To me, this suggests this "Semi-Italian" name for 3...d6 isn't tenable. Highly suggest merging, along with Hungarian Defence and perhaps others, into Italian Game. Thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Italian Game is currently a WP:SS summary style article which gives a brief overview of all lines after 3.Bc4. Do you think it would be better if Italian Game included more detail from this article and Hungarian Defence? I think that would create balance challenges where Italian Game would have much more space devoted to lines of small importance than the very important GP and Two Knights. To compensate the Italian Game article coverage of the GP and Two Knights could be expanded, but this would be entirely duplicative of Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defence. I don't see how that would improve the articles or the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking Italian Game would just have a brief overview with subsections inside 3...Bc5 for c3-d4, c3-d3, Nc3-d3, b4, 0-0, and d4, or so, and same for Two Knights with 4.Ng5, 4.d4, and 4.d3. This issue is a partial motivation for my rejected narrowing proposal there but it works fine keeping Giuoco Piano separate there. I guess my thinking is that with Open Game and King's Pawn Game already being WP:SS, Italian Game can have more detail, but no go as deep into main lines as Giuoco Piano. Dayshade (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting here that one note in an old book is not a definitive source for an opening name. I don't think 3...h6 has a standard name. I knew 3...d6 as the Paris Defence but for rare openings it's a fairly common situation that more than one name is in use, none of them being especially "standard". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it seems both don't have standard names. I'm not sure I've seen Paris Defence in more than one source either. But I think in particular Semi-Italian Opening doesn't work if we're using Italian Game for 3.Bc4. Semi-Italian Opening as a term seems to only work well when Italian Opening is used for 3...Bc5, or at least 3.Bc4 (as opposed to Italian Game). Dayshade (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no compelling reason to rename or merge this article. By the way "Semi-Italian" is used in Chess Review November 1965, page 340. I think the notes are by Hans Kmoch, who says this is what Alekhine used to call it, so that's good enough for me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also seen it called the Alekhine Variation and Paris Defence. "Semi-Italian Opening" clashes with not using "Italian Opening". Dayshade (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Drop it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? Dayshade (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Because you are basing it on your personal preference rather than reliable sources or Wikipedia policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

See Consistency (also see WP:CONSISTENT) at WP:CRITERIA. No name would be sufficiently recognizable, but it seems people recognize Paris Defense/Paris Defence more than Semi-Italian. There's also apparently a second source for Paris besides Batsford here: (pulled that from the 2012 AfD linked at the top of this page) Dayshade (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate: Not sure if you were aware, but IHTS had it set up so "Italian Opening" redirected to Giuoco Piano, as if "Italian Opening" and "Italian Game" were not synonymous. If assuming that Italian Opening should not mean a different thing than Italian Game (on logical grounds, but I also found a source for it which is now on Italian Game), it seems inconsistent/bizarre to have a Semi-Italian Opening as a variation of the Italian Opening(/Game). Dayshade (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

That is, it stems from the old usage of "Italian" as 3...Bc5 only, which is what confused IHTS into thinking Italian Game and Italian Opening should have different meanings. Does that make sense? Dayshade (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Chess opening names are inconsistent and always have been. Get over it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

So you're opposed to using any of this as a reason to tie break between Paris Defence and Semi-Italian, which are about equally represented in sources? Plus Paris Defence is the original name of the article. Dayshade (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, this would be a particularly unnecessarily egregious inconsistency. Mild inconsistency is fine; this one doesn't need to be like this at all. Dayshade (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't recall being "confused", I was mistaken. (WP doesn't follow suit w/ H&W's "Italian Opening, often called the Giuoco Piano".) --IHTS (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I use confused to mean mistaken sometimes. Dayshade (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Another benefit of merging would be that it can be removed from the chess infobox, as it's not notable enough to deserve a spot there. Dayshade (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It can (and should) be removed from the chess infobox even if the article remains as is. The chess infobox is an embarrassment. Quale (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been blocked from removing it. See the latest section of Template talk:Chess. Dayshade (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort. That talk is an excellent illustration of just how dumb the chess infobox is. Quale (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Lol. Well maybe IHTS will come around once he sees this discussion and the new discovery about the Semi-Italian name. Dayshade (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope, agree w/ Max. --IHTS (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No one "blocked" you; you did your unexplained excise after knowing no consensus. And I never gave a hoot re that template. p.s. "Paris Defence" had two refs in place when you said above it had only one. H&W treats "Paris Defence" as an alternative name for the Semi-Italian. The orig article title "Paris Defence" was an arbitrary choice; "Semi-Italian Opening" was my later deliberate improvement. --IHTS (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you still think it's an improvement? Thought you were a lover of consistency? Dayshade (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Not mutually exclusive. --IHTS (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't it inconsistent to use "Italian Game" (synonymous with "Italian Opening") for 3.Bc4 but then have this name? Alekhine (mentioned in the thing that Max linked which I'm guessing led to your agreement with him) lived at a time when Italian was more likely to mean 3.Bc4 Bc5, so doesn't that change things? Especially since I found a source using Semi-Italian for 3...h6? How much more inconsistent would it have to be to change your view? Dayshade (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Notable games

@MaxBrowne2: The old longer version was under a section labeled "Notable games". I'm leaving out "notable" from my new revision, but that's where I got the word "notable" from. Dayshade (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do we need the sample game section at all? Analysis seems outdated, so good solution is just to make it more like the rest of the article's lines. Dayshade (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

OK I'll stop interfering. Opening articles probably don't need to provide "sample games", certainly in this case it's more for entertainment than theoretical importance. It's not the job of opening articles to entertain, nor is it their job to provide a complete up to date theoretical analysis, it's to reflect the sources and to some extent document the history of the opening. Some of the analysis in old sources will be incorrect according to Stockfish, even Fischer is not immune, but real howlers like Sozin's "=" in a position where Black has a forced mate were probably already spotted before the silicon monsters came along. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really bother me to keep it either honestly, but it doesn't seem very notable. Also wonder if it might fit in somewhere else. Dayshade (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Notable games is a common sechead in many WP:CHESS articles. It's been debated due to clash w/ WP:NOTABILITY. And qualification of games under that sechead has likewise been debated. (Don't recall that any conclusions were reached.) That said, "Notable games" seemed a more appropriate sechead than "Sample games" given the context of the article. p.s. You can't argue name-choice preferences or content adds based on past or existing article texts (e.g. initial article name "Paris Defense"; current sechead name "Notable games"), that just doesn't work. --IHTS (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

OK, I'm just suspicious when anyone asserts that something is "notable", given the wikipedia context. And this game though important to the history of the opening, was in the end just a simul game against an amateur. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Rodzinski or Rodzynski?

I think Rodzinski is the normal Polish spelling but if he lived in France he might have changed it. Can we get back to the ultimate source of the game? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)