Talk:Berlin Defence

Lead reworking proposal

The lead section should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on". I propose (1) changing the lead to this:

The Berlin Defence, also called the Berlin Wall, is a chess opening that begins with the moves:

e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6

The opening is a variation of the Ruy Lopez. After a period of disuse, it experienced a resurgence in popularity when Vladimir Kramnik used it extensively against Garry Kasparov in the 2000 Chess World Championships. Strategically, the Berlin Defence is normally used as a drawing weapon by players who want to obtain a draw as Black, and by players who prefer to play defensively and reach endgames[7].

(2) Move the Encylopedia codes to a list at the end of the article, similar to other chess articles. I think these codes are given too much prominence in a few articles, as they're more for the specialized reader.

(3) I think the solidity/drawishness of the opening is related to the early trade of Queens. Is this worth mentioning somewhere? If so, I can try to source a good reference to back this up.Dhalamh (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The reorganization seems reasonable. May I make a couple of additional suggestions:

• "Berlin Wall" does not rise to the level of being an actual name of the variation; it was used by chess journalists for a while after Kramnik revived the line, but the novelty soon wore off.
• I am not sure it is correct to state that the B.D. is "normally used as a drawing weapon", etc. (However if you can find an article or book that supports that, OK with me.) Later the article (currently) says "a solid opening for Black to use in order to achieve an equal endgame". Although there is no source for this, it is a harmless thing to say, and so it's OK. There are many openings, including this one, in which White can bail to a drawish position if that's all he wants, but that doesn't make it a "drawing weapon". Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

why don't we have a section or something on the a4 thing that is used for quick draws?

eg levon vs wesley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dly4PeRrWW8

eg wesley vs magnus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEb1lCJzZ-I

Thewriter006 (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article showing the line and included a recent example where it was used in an OTB tournament. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The quotation from Nakamura does not help the article, since he doesn't discuss the actual variation, only his own strategies and motivations.

The first part of that paragraph, about the draw between Nakamura and So, likewise is about the present-day chess scene, not about the variation. Note that chessgames.com is not a reliable source, although with games between grandmasters at level, you could sort of get away with it. But the whole paragraph is tangential to the subject of the article.

You are right, the YouTubes are not a reliable source. The remedy in this case is to just delete the material that is citing them; it doesn't much help the article anyway. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that everything after the quote doesn't help the article, but I do think that mentioning the infamy of the line among top-level play is useful. Feel free for anyone to revert if they disagree. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

lol whoever said that youtube is reliable in this case? Thewriter006 (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not ready for GAN

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but in its present state, this article is nowhere close to meeting the good article criteria. I see references to sources that do not meet the criteria for reliability such as Chessgames database statistics and Chess.com blogs. Some statements are completely unsourced. Meanwhile, out of the many substantial (i.e., book-length) and reliable sources that could be used to write this article, only one (Bernal's book) is cited, which indicates that way too little research has been done. The article's coverage cannot be considered neutral and broad when both the Berlin endgame and 4.d3, which are main lines with tons of theory, somehow receive less attention than the vastly less significant 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 sideline, and another major line 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 is not mentioned at all.

Proper research (see e.g., the books by Cox, Lysyj/Ovetchkin, and Roiz) will show that an important distinction between it and other solid responses to 1.e4 like the Petroff, and a crucial reason why it remains so popular, is that Black is not just grovelling for a draw in the Berlin endgame, but has a flexible setup with dynamic possibilities thanks to his bishop pair.

We currently have two articles on chess openings which are Good Articles, Budapest Gambit and Modern Benoni. I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination until more research and writing has been done and this article approaches the breadth and depth of the other two. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies! I believe I ended up inadvertently submitting a GA nomination because I was using this page as a sandbox to play around with the GA templates, and I must have accidentally clicked "publish" instead of the "back" button. Please pardon my clumsiness – I have pulled the GA nomination. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cobblet Also, pardon my ignorance, but I am a bit new to Talk pages on Wikipedia – do you still receive the notification even if I edited the source instead of replying to you directly via the built-in reply button? (This post was made via the reply button, but the post above was not.) SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries, no harm done. I only get pinged when you use the reply button. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

was this page ever deleted or something?

wikipedia n00b here. i could swear i looked this up between Jan 2021 to mid 2021 but couldn't find anything. (even now I'm surprised I created a talk page section last year because I thought this page didn't exist.)

was this page ever deleted or something? How would I check for deletion history or lack thereof? Thewriter006 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Berlin Defence, after consensus that this is the primary topic and due to the absence of any other article with this title (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Berlin Defence (chess) → Berlin Defence (Ruy Lopez)Berlin Defence (Ruy Lopez) – Not a helpful disambiguation conisdering Berlin Defence. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Although, I would think if it were just the chess topics, a hatnote would suffice; it seems like this is hypothetical disambiguation with the concept of defending the city of Berlin, without actually disambiguating that meaning. Battle of Berlin might come the closest, but there are probably other topics. That said, it's not like we have Defense of Berlin or similar. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with a move to Berlin Defence and usurping the dab page. After a little of hunting around, I agree the Ruy Lopez line is more prominent than the line in the Bishop's opening. I still believe the original intent was to disambiguate with defense of the city, but as I said there isn't any clear target for that meaning. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Berlin Defence. This is the primary topic. The disambiguation page is not needed; the existing hatnote to Bishop's Opening#Berlin Defense: 2...Nf6 is sufficient. 162 etc. (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Berlin Defence per 162 etc. There is no other article using the title. Station1 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure the Ruy Lopez line is a primary topic over the other one, just becasue it has a stand-alone article and the other has a section at the parent opening. A term with just one single existing article is not automatically the primary topic (see WP:PRIMARYRED) though it often is consistent with it being so. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

When there's only one article, there's no need to disambiguate the title itself. And when there is only one other topic, a hatnote on that article is just as good as a dab page (or better, since those who want Ruy Lopez don't have to click on anything). Station1 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Even if we include all traffic to Bishop's Opening, the variation of the Ruy Lopez gets a majority of clicks . Kramnik famously won the Classical World Chess Championship 2000 using it, and it's been part of all Super GMs' repertoires since. There's no evidence that the variation of the Bishop's Opening has the same notability. 162 etc. (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 18 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is that the current title is the most concise, keeps the article's primary topic status, and that the proposed title is an unneeded qualifier. (closed by non-admin page mover) 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:53, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Berlin Defence → Ruy Lopez, Berlin DefenceRuy Lopez, Berlin Defence – Per WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISE. Every other variation of the Ruy Lopez that has a standalone article uses a disambiguator: Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation, Ruy Lopez, Jaenisch Gambit, Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack, and Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev Variation. This variation should be no different, particularly when another Berlin Defence is a main line of the Bishop's Opening, as noted in the previous discussion from 2023. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Naming of articles on variations, where a desire for consistency in this regard has been expressed. The distinction between sequences that are regarded as independent chess openings, and variations of such openings, is one worth making. By omitting the qualifier, we potentially mislead readers into believing that the Berlin is an independent defence to 1.e4 like the Petroff or the Philidor rather than a variation of the Ruy Lopez like the others listed above. Cobblet (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per consensus at the 2023 discussion. This is the primary topic. We do not add unnecessary disambiguation simply for the sake of consistency. 162 etc. (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure we do. See WP:USPLACE for a well-established example of strict comma-separated disambiguation, whether or not the place name is the primary topic. Consistency has a specific advantage in the context of distinguishing independent openings from opening variations. Nobody considered that in the previous discussion. Cobblet (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:USPLACE is a naming convention which applies only in its specific context, and is well-known for being an exception to the usual policy at WP:PRECISE. 162 etc. (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CRITERIA does not single out precision as the "usual policy", and precision cannot be the reason for the current name, since there are other opening variations with the name Berlin Defence. My suggested name is more precise. Cobblet (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Precision is literally one of the five CRITERIA, and is indeed policy. 162 etc. (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's not the same as what you said before, but in any case, thank you for supporting my position. Cobblet (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am not supporting your position. Per WP:PRECISE, "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The current title Berlin Defence does exactly that. An unnecessarily precise title, such as the one you suggested, goes against policy. 162 etc. (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  It was already established in the previous discussion that "Berlin Defence" does not "unambiguously" define the article scope, since there are other variations with this name. Just because this is the primary topic does not mean there is a lack of ambiguity. Cobblet (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  But if it is the primary topic, then any such ambiguity is irrelevant to the choice of article name... that's what primary topic means. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Confusing. We have Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense, but also Semi-Tarrasch Defense and Semi-Slav Defense. We have Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, Yugoslav Attack (w/ lede & redirect Yugoslav Attack), but also Smith–Morra Gambit. This is no small issue! --IHTS (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair I don't think this is as much of an issue as it seems. Queen's Gambit Declined, Cambridge Springs Defense is a redirect to a section of the Queen's Gambit Declined article, just like Cambridge Springs Defense does. I've got no idea what's going on with the Yugoslav Attack. You say w/lede & redirect Yugoslav Attack but actually Yugoslav Attack redirects to a section of Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, and a hatnote on that section says the main article is.. Sicilian, Dragon, Yugoslav Attack, 9.Bc4. Total mess. I will go fix it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, had you checked more carefully, you w/ have seen that the Cambridge Springs article was a stand-alone article at the time of my post. Only later did a user merge the article w/ the QGD article. --IHTS (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Makes sense. I thought I remembered the Cambridge Springs Defence having its own article when I was redirected. Although in my own defence here it's not like I'm going to go check to see if it had been an article when you posted about it less than a week ago. It's a bit uncommon for that to happen the way it did. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, my fault haha. I should have posted here when I did that. Dayshade (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, Yugoslav Attack does redirect to Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation, Yugoslav Attack. It's Yugoslav attack that redirects to Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation. Fun! ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:28, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. An opening name does not require qualification where usage is well-established and unambiguous within its primary context. "Berlin Defense" is universally understood to denote the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 in the Ruy Lopez. The existence of an identically named variation in the Bishop's Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6) does not compete with or affect this meaning. In practice, unqualified references to the "Berlin Defense" are never interpreted as arising from the Bishop's Opening. Consequently, no disambiguation is warranted. Naming conventions in chess are governed by established usage, not hypothetical ambiguity.

Example: A book titled Berlin Defence (2021) required no qualifier such as "Ruy Lopez" in order to be correctly understood.

Erukx (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC) Erukx (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that "Berlin Defence" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm asking whether or not the community finds it desirable to have a standardized format for article names for opening variations. IHTS gets it. Cobblet (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not see the need for losing sleep over standardization of names of articles about opening variations. Standardization of article names, generally, is achieved (if that is the right word) by the creation (and use) of redirects. Redirects are a powerful tool, and we should appreciate what that tool is doing for us and can do for us. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Redirects are a good idea and we should have them, but there are some practical reasons that agreeing upon the naming scheme for chess opening articles might be good. For one, it would be easier to find stuff in Category:chess openings if the article names were consistent. (Redirects could go in that category too, but that might lead to other issues. If the chess openings cat contained "Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence" and "Berlin Defence" a reader might reasonably think these were articles about different topics.) Another concern is ongoing tug-of-war page renames back and forth. I suppose we could adopt a MOS:RETAIN kind of idea where chess opening articles are left at their original names whichever naming pattern was used except in cases of obvious mistakes. (St. George Defence was originally created as "Defense" which was somewhat unfortunate. Not related to naming patterns, but Danvers Opening has had at least three different titles, although that's ancient history now since the page hasn't been moved since 2015.) Quale (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In the case of St. George Defence it doesn't really matter what it was created as because it has MOS:TIES to England. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Valid point about WP:CONSISTENCY, as it would certainly seems strange on the surface and I can't deny that chess opening jargon and stylization can be a bit of a mess (that's in large part because there is a long tradition of simply not having opening names be standardized at all), but this is not the way to fix it. There are some questionable title choices here (the Marshall Attack could easily be moved to just that title), but I also think it's very valid to have openings that are titled [Name] Variation prefixed with the opening they are a variation of. It's a bit trickier than usual but I think just going off WP:COMMONNAME just might be able to work for chess openings, and Berlin Defence is certainly the common name. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 10:46, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. There seems no dispute that the existing name is unambiguous and is the common name. So there is no case for disambiguation, per wp:concise. The existing redirect from the proposed name should remain. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with others' comments about conciseness and primary topic. As for consistency, I have opened a discussion at Talk:Ruy Lopez, Marshall Attack to move that to Marshall Attack, which apparently was its original name before an undiscussed move in 2024. Perhaps a rule of thumb is that openings using the term "variation" should always use the extended form of their names, as variation inherently raises more of a question of "variation of what?" than those with "defence" or "gambit" or others. Dayshade (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.