Talk:English Opening

call for help

This page could be much better. Perhaps I caused as much damage as helped; I really feel that each common response is deserving of a subsection but I've backed off each time because the preview of each single line as a subsection seems absurd. I think it is more appropriate to expand each common response before making sub-sections. thanks.--Mokru 03:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY with Mokru. Let us, for instance, consider this excerpt from the article:

"1...e6

White can play 2.d4, which is usually reached by 1.d4 e6 2. c4 so see Queen's Pawn Game. Then black may play 2...Nf6 (see 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6), or black may play 2...d5 (see 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6). Also white can play 2.Nf3. Then black may play 2...Nf6 (given above). Or black may play 2...d5 for English (A13, see 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5). This can lead to Queen's Gambit Declined (D37), Queen's Gambit Declined (D30), or English (A13). Also white can play 2.Nc3. Then black may play 2...Nf6 (given above). Or black may play 2...d5 for Queen's Gambit Declined (D31, see 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5). This can lead to Queen's Gambit Declined (D35) or Queen's Gambit Declined (D31)."

(1) First of all, it would be highly beneficial if the article contains little interactive chess board by the side allowing Wikipedia readers to visually check out the various chess lines.

(2) Secondly, the article mentions terms like D31 and D35. It would be beneficial if these terms are hyperlinked to pages explaining these "mysterious" terms themselves.

(3) Considering the last two lines of the excerpt, they essentially state that the QGD can lead to either QCG or QCG !!?!

(4) It is not so clear how the line 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 transposes to the QGD line.

I would have tried to improve this page myself, as I have improved other pages, but in this particular instance I do not have the knowledge to do it myself. Best regards.

Joe Gatt (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I worked on #2 and #3, but there are still a lot of problems like #3, e.g. "This can lead to English (A25), English (A22), or English (A20)." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No question about it-there's much work to be done and I believe much of this could be rewritten from the start. I have to admit to being reluctant to start it because I'm not sure when I'd ever finish. Hushpuckena (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bubba73, I am reaching out to anyone out there who can improve this page. I am sure that this is a page that is read often. Unfortunately, the issues that I have outlined on New Year's Day, one and a half years ago, remain outstanding still. Joe Gatt (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of done editing chess articles, for the time being, at least. But a good place to ask is on the chess project talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

merge from English Opening, Symmetrical, Main line with d4

The article with that name contained this text:

In chess, A39 is the ECO code for the English, Symmetrical, 7.d4 chess opening. The game begins 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.O-O O-O 7.d4. The question of winning or drawing in the Symmetrical English depends on the struggle over the d4 and d5 squares. This particular opening is significant in that it is White that first plays the queen pawn into the center. Vasily Smyslov had an unbeaten record with it as White and Zoltan Ribli has a plus score out of 7 games on the White side.

and I was going to merge it here. However, the info on the symmertical version doesn't get anywhere nearly this deep, so for the time being I have chosen to not include it, and made the other page a redirect. If the symmertical version gets expanded, then this could be included. Bubba73 (talk), 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Jaenisch Gambit

My edits on the Jaenisch Gambit keep getting taken out or reduced by someone who has decided the opening cannot possibly be sound, even though it scores very well in practice and is nearly identical to the Benko Gambit. HINT: +1.30 on the engine is NOT a win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:43:0:920:20ea:8834:98cf:7085 (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:V. Verifiability is the most important obstacle to overcome if you want to include claims in an article. Other concerns such as undue weight might also come into play, but first focus on finding reliable sources that support your claims. Quale (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

name origin in template

I tried to incorporate the info about Howard Staunton into the template. However, I am not sure it reads very well, or is worded in the spirit of the intended use of the template. Please feel free to have a look and improve the presentation of the info in the template. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you worded it pretty well. Perhaps someone can tweak it a little, but really it's fine now. Quale 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Transitional potential

Shouldn't the title be Transpositional potential? Dynzmoar (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I goofed it up the other day. Bubba73 (talk), 17:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fischer-Panno 1970

The Fischer-Panno 1970 game mentioned in the lead is the infamous one-move game. Should that be mentioned? (I don't think so.) Fischer may have made that move knowing that Panno was not likely to show up. Bubba73 (talk), 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a serious game, at least on Fischer's part. Recall (as related in List of world records in chess) that Fischer tried to persuade Panno to play. Moreover, he had played 1.c4 earlier in the tournament against Polugaevsky. Krakatoa (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very likely that Fischer had researched Panno's games, seen how Panno typically played against the English, and had prepared something specifically for Panno. Panno was a well-respected opening theoretician who tended to play openings in a consistent manner, and so would not have been overly difficult to prepare for. The supposition that Fischer had prepared something specific also might in part account for Fischer's exhortations to Panno to play. Fischer would not have wanted his research efforts to be wasted. DanQuigley 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

The reference to this opening being the fourth most successful should be revised. The databases list different games, with the database rating the English fourth not including any draws! This makes the database next to useless for evaluating openings, as it strongly skews the statistics. This article's introduction is therefore misleading. It also commits the fallacy of equivocation by using sources that measure success in different ways. The third source only measures an opening by its chances of winning, whereas one properly assesses an opening by examining a player's probability of scoring, which can be gleaned from the first two databases referenced. The English does win less the 1.e4 or 1.d4, but scores more often because of higher draw chances, coupled with a win percentage that is just slightly lower than that of 1.d4. To further the example: 1.e4 wins more than any other opening, but it also loses more than any other top opening, which makes it score less often than 1.d4, 1.c4, and sometimes the Reti, depending on the database. If anyone concurs with this observation, please edit this article. -Eriat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.149.254 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right about it being misleading and it needs to be clarified. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Variation not mentioned

GM Andrew Soltis published a book Winning With the English Opening (1982), and all of his analysis involves 1. c4 followed by 2. g3, with Nc3 delayed, often for quite a few moves. Should that variant be mentioned here? Is this even a proper English opening? Maybe it's more properly considered a Reti or Catalan spin-off. WHPratt (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Sorry, very late correction.WHPratt (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I note that Soltis authored a later book, Winning With 1 c4 (1990) -- published by Chess Digest as was the above-mentioned book. Herein, 1. c4 c6 is invariably followed by 2. Nf3 in all of the analysis, except in the introductory section, where the 2. g3 version remains in an example. Now, something must have busted the variation or otherwise soured him on 2. g3. If so, the article should explain why this line is bad, or less than ideal. WHPratt (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

typo in 'common responses'

The text reads:

>> Common responses include:[1] >> >> 1...Nf6 The most common response to 1.c4, often played in hopes of getting an Indian Defence. However, more than half >>the time after playing this first move, Black subsequently elects to transpose into either a Symmetrical Defense with ...c5, >>or a Reversed Sicilian with 1...e5.

Shouldn't it be '2...e5' (or '...e5') at the end there...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.134.194 (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right. The article is talking about moves subsequent to 1...Nf6. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

I saw that this obscure variation of the English has its own page- Phildius Defence. Should that info instead be mentioned in a short section in the English Opening page? I'm a little unclear about what makes a certain variation worthy of its own page. Fryedk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

I think it should be merged into this article. Actually the reference has one game of it, so I think it should be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely delete. No evidence so far that the world knows of any opening by that name. Quale (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Carls-Bremen System

Shouldn't the Carls-Bremen System (or Carl's Bremen System or Carl-Bremen System?) be covered better?

Or at least include the full (correct) spelling.

Example (Magnus Carlsen vs. Peter Svidler, 2020-07-31):

"Played in Every Game, Except This One || Svidler vs Carlsen || Chess24 Legends of Chess (2020)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortense (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)