Talk:Flank opening

Merger proposal[edit]

The term "irregular chess opening" has no precise, generally agreed-upon definition that I know of, and the openings listed on that page are commonly grouped with the flank openings. For example, even right now 1.b4 is listed in both articles. Furthermore, even in 1992 the Oxford Companion (p. 182) had already noted that "the term 'irregular opening' has gradually fallen into disuse." I propose renaming the section currently titled Flank opening#Others to "White's other first moves", adding to it the list currently found in Irregular chess opening, and making a note that some of these moves are called the "irregular openings". Your thoughts? Cobblet (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also merge the relevant sections in the chess opening article. Cobblet (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The merge isn't logical. For example 1. d3 is not a flank opening. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's true, that 1.d3 and 1.e3 are not technically "flank openings." Do you have any suggestions whether anything could be done about irregular chess opening beyond leaving it as a stub? Could it be moved into the glossary of chess, perhaps? Cobblet (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My MCO-10 is packed away now, but I think it has a section on flank openings plus a section or chapter on irregular openings, implying that there is a difference. I checked my more modern books, but none of them have the irregular openings. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MCO-15 only has a section entitled "Flank Openings." However, on p. 739, which lists the footnotes of "Miscellaneous flank openings" on the previous page, footnote (p) begins, "Other unusual first moves are," and goes on to list 1.a3, 1.c3 and 1.e3. Cobblet (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first chapter of Batsford Chess Openings (1982) is named: "Unusual Openings (1 b4; 1 g4; 1 Nc3; 1 g3)". The index in back-of-book has the following entry: "Irregular First Moves [p.] 2". There is no chapter or index entry starting "Flank". The Oxford Companion (1984) says "Flank opening" is: "a general term for any opening in which neither of White's centre pawns is advanced to its fourth rank in the first few moves." That is quite vague and general and perhaps therefore WP should not attempt to be classifying same. (How about resorting instead to comments at particular opening articles, and the Chess glossary definition, in lieu of a separate article on "Flank openings"?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this discussion seems oriented too much toward specific taxonomical technicalities rather than practical utility. I suggest we look at what realistic purpose the classifications serve instead. In doing so, I suggest the articles remain separate, as the Flank Opening article discusses proven, effective flank openings while the Irregular Openings article shows less effective (as stated in the Chess Openings page), seemingly obscure openings. For those newer to chess (like myself), this distinction proves very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.60 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]