User talk:Dayshade

Welcome!

Hello, Dayshade, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – hysteria18 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! Dayshade (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Dayshade, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Dinosaurs. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Al-Sahifa al-sajjadiyya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Please don't mark your edits as "minor" if you are making any changes to the meaning or substance of the article. The WP:MINOR option is only appropriate for things like fixing typos and syntax, or for reverting obvious vandalism. Only the most uncontroversial edits are "minor", if in doubt don't use it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, agreed. Please don't do this, Dayshade. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My bad lol. Dayshade (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Changes to wording are not "minor". Unless it's fixing typos or markup, or reverting obvious vandalism, please don't mark your edits as minor. If in doubt don't use it. Please get out of the habit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The article King's Gambit, Classical Variation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant. This duplicates material in King's Gambit and will only cause maintenance problems in future. Besides the term "Classical Variation" isn't even in common use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

hi I am new to wikipedia would you like to help me? Learning2011133 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, any specific questions? Dayshade (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

how to make edits in wikipedia? Learning2011133 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sicilian Defence indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slav Defense, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian Game was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm replying to you here, as your question isn't related to the discussion on WT:CHESS, which is why I ignored it the first time. I haven't seen 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 c6 described as the starting point of the Berlin, only 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6. It's not a particularly common name, but did appear in Bologan's Black Weapons (2014). Cobblet (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, thanks! Dayshade (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@MaxBrowne2: I found a partial pdf of that book and it interestingly appears that the Polerio name in Two Knights is used there. But he writes it as "Polerio's Attack". Seems like it's a source of a few of the weird names floating around? Given this, do you think I should ignore it as a source of names, and why or why not? Dayshade (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think you meant to ping me, not Max. When you're doing research, totally ignoring a particular source is rarely the right approach. Ditto for totally relying on a particular source. Always try to consult multiple sources. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You waste everybody's time by persisting with a point of view long after the consensus is against you. As for the Italian Gambit, it probably isn't notable enough for its own article and can be covered by a paragraph under Giuoco Piano, but that's another discussion entirely. As far as I'm concerned you are a disruptive editor. Any time we attempt to discuss anything you throw up a whole lot of whataboutery and muddy the issue. You are incredibly frustrating to engage with. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Even if I were to take two editors (you and Quale) saying that Giuoco Piano should remain an article covering all of 3...Bc5 as a final consensus, there are still some relevant questions left to discuss, and there were even more before you gave those thoughts about including a terminology section in your most recent reply. Bruce's response left me wanting to follow up to figure out his views on some more specific questions. Not sure why stuff like this bothers you so much. It's not a waste of time to get to the bottom of how various sources define various terms. It's not disruptive to make bold changes and attempt fixes/compromises after getting reverted. You're the one that violated the three revert rule and I chose not to report you. I've already attempted to rebut your accusations in the past, but the policy says:

"Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after the community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. This is disruptive... Genuine belief that you have a valid point does not mean that point must be accepted by the community when you have been told otherwise. The community's rejection of your idea is not because they didn't hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what others are telling you. Make an effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement."

I consistently make an effort to see their [/your] side of the debate and work on finding points of agreement. Are you doing the same for me? And among your many complaints I never see you writing about feeling dismissed in the way I do by you. If anyone, it's you who lacks consensus building (item #4 at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). Dayshade (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Like, it feels like you consider my efforts to find points of agreement and so on to be IDHT. And in general any effort to defend myself or protest against needlessly insulting treatment is dismissed as Whataboutery or IDHT. Dayshade (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So if we're discussing the Giuoco Piano, don't say things like "But what about the Zukertort Opening?" etc etc. You keep throwing out random unrelated topics which are no help at all in the current discussion. Please focus! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, the alternative would be to bug Quale on his talk page or ping him, which would probably annoy him too. So idk. It's too hard not to annoy at least one person. It just happened to come up naturally as I was responding to other issues, cause I noticed it during my research on the term Giuoco Piano. I can see why it's slightly annoying but not why it's such a big deal. Dayshade (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Why can't you just accept it when you don't have consensus and move on, as I did when I didn't get much support for adopting a standard ENGVAR? Sometimes your ideas get consensus, sometimes they don't. And I guarantee you will not get consensus to redefine "Giuoco Piano". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You did get some support but then that editor who stumbled across the topic while posting the one below opposed it for no particular reason and Bruce seconded his opposal. As for Talk:Giuoco Piano, like I said, there are other possibilities and questions to discuss, like whether Italian Gambit should be merged in and why Evans Gambit in particular gets its own article, particularly before your most recent reply there, and earlier you were wrongly insisting 3...Bc5 was universal and I felt compelled to give counterexamples. Dayshade (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I would also say, it's not really even true that I haven't accepted I don't have consensus. I think I would be better accused of that if I'd kept editing on the main namespace for Giuoco Piano to push the alternative view. It's just the talk page where I'm talking a lot about my research and so on. Dayshade (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm keeping this off the talk page, because this is OR-ish, but you might be interested.

I agree with you that 1...g5 and 1...Nc6 are really not in the same category (LOL), and that to some extent the problem is just that sources will not take moves like this very seriously. That said, there are some actual reasons people tend to stop at 1...e5, 1...c5, 1...e6, 1...c6, 1...d6, 1...g6, 1...Nf6, and 1...d5 when considering the serious independent responses:

• The main issue with 1...Nc6 really is that White can (and, realistically will, because who's going to be booked up for the Nimzowitsch?) play 2.Nf3, at which point 2...e5 is just the best move. At that point it doesn't have much independence anymore. You could play 2...d6 if you're adamant on trying to stay off the beaten track, but if you don't play ...e5 later you end up with a space problem and likely an annoying White pawn on d5, and if you do, you just have a worse Philidor where you blocked your c-pawn for no reason.
• 1...b6 and 1...a6 are really just too slow if you play them with the plan of fianchettoing the QB: White gets developed far too quickly while you're noodling around. In fact 1...a6 is probably better, but you then need to take it as not so much the a6-b5 plan (which is not great), but as basically "fine, I've wasted a move, and now after 2.d4 I will play 2...e6 and get into a French Defense where ...a6 is often a useful move". That's more the mentality of Anderssen's Opening or the 4.a3 Four Knights. :)
• But 1...g5 is, ugh, uniquely awful. It creates a weakness and fits poorly with pretty much every reasonable setup. Probably it is outright the worst response to 1.e4 that doesn't lose material on the spot. That it has a name and some seriousness at all I guess dates from Basman and his Grob-loving ways.

Double sharp (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, I knew this. There's also 2.Nf3 f5 in the Nimzowitsch, which is the Colorado Gambit. But do you agree with Max that MCO including half a page on 1...g5 means it should be grouped apart from 1...a5 and so on though? Respond on the talk page if you're down, but here's fine too. Dayshade (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, the 1...d6/1...g6 distinction seems problematic to me, as the Pirc is often reached from 1...g6 and the Modern from 1...d6, do you agree? Dayshade (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

2...f5 is pretty bold. Hey, I guess it's probably not worse than the Latvian. XD

Well, Paul van der Sterren's FCO not only doesn't bother to cover 1...g5, but it doesn't even bother to cover 1...a6. Kaufman's repertoires also draw the line at 1...b6 and don't go further. Djuric, Komarov, and Pantaleoni's The Complete 1.e4 also groups everything beyond 1...b6 as "minor defences": it covers 1...a6 and 1...g5 very briefly, but writes "In general it pays not to be dogmatic. However, the lost tempo and, more importantly, the weakening of the kingside seems to be a bit beyond the pale. Therefore, with correct play, these defects should guarantee White a clear advantage." (But it doesn't name either.) So I think I see the point behind classifying 1...g5 apart from 1...a5, while agreeing that theoretically speaking, in a world free from the history of these moves, 1...g5 is worse than 1...a5.

I agree with you. I tend to think of it more similarly to Matthew Sadler's article on the Modern vs the Pirc: it's really more about whether you play ...Nf6 early (the Pirc) or not (the Modern). And FWIW, going by the first move also ends up in a wrinkle, because 1.e4 d6 can very well end up in a Philidor instead of a Pirc (and, uh, if you ask me, I suspect that the Philidor transposition might objectively be the best moves after 1.e4 d6, but I'm no master of any kind). Double sharp (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Adding The Complete 1.e4 to the article now. Wow, communicating with you feels so much more pleasant and easier. Dayshade (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Heh. I like your enthusiasm and appreciate your work, but it is sometimes quite a lot of work to see what you're doing all at once. :P

I see you have seen the article on the Modern Benoni, so I guess you can see from that how WP style (at its theoretical ideal, since it's a GA) for chess openings is? Really, I guess some of the problem is that theory has been changing fairly quickly with the NN engines and an article that was a good encyclopaedic summary of the literature in 2013 may be now having the problem that indeed the Benoni is just not a thing you see in top-level classical play anymore. And that probably goes even more for articles that have kept more or less their current organization since the 2000s. You'd then need to go on quite a big literature review and search to do things justice and it'd then be a pain and still subject to later discoveries. Which is not to say that it's not worth doing. (Although I suppose one answer is to try to work in a sandbox before making it go live? And, to avoid the outdatedness problem, maybe try to improve the article on a sounder opening with terminology that's less in flux, like perhaps the QGD. Yes, I'm biased. :P) Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Btw, I've also seen a distinction between New Philidor and Old Philidor emerge which makes sense as the new move order can be used to encouraging an early Nc3. Yeah, been thinking about the sandbox thing, but I also find just pretending there isn't a bunch of confusing varying terminology (which can be explained well on a Wikipedia article) needless. And I actually somehow got myself to actually do that sort of intense lit review for Giuoco Piano/classical Italian lines, but I still need to write down and post more of my results. Dayshade (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Like, I guess I see the confusion surrounding the Giuoco Piano as a way we can be of service to chess players who currently are as confused as I was with what is going on with the terminology in the Italian. Dayshade (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, absolutely.

New vs Old Philidor meaning whether you start with 1...e5 or with 1...d6? (I need to ask, since the Philidor is an opening that does not appeal to me at all. XD)

Well, the advantage of doing it in a sandbox is that you don't have to worry about the article being always in a readable state. I wrote queen versus rook endgame all in a sandbox and then moved it into mainspace, so there's no reason you couldn't do something like that.

Looking forward to seeing those results, I'm curious. :) Double sharp (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I still think the recently reverted version of Giuoco Piano was totally readable and better than the old version, which MaxBrowne has also criticized a lot, although it seems he's conceded it's better than the one from a year ago. But I wouldn't have much to do to fix a lot of his complaints and hopefully get him to stop reverting. Do you think Møller Attack should be split out, or perhaps Greco Gambit or Greco Attack? Dayshade (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

New is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 (and then 3.Nc3 e5, allowing 4.dxe5 instead of transposing with 4.Nf3, or 3.Nc3 Nd7 and only then 4...e5, though White might play 4.f4 or even 4.g4, etc, instead of 4.Nf3) Dayshade (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wonder if Italian Game, Sveshnikov Variation will exist some day, also, for 6.e5, or perhaps Italian Game, new main line of the old main line (lol). Dayshade (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I see. Yeah, my impression had been that the old one got almost killed by move-order issues plus 3...exd4 just being a worse Open Sicilian where you just go 0-0-0 and do a massive kingside attack. Is that still accurate?

Isn't the Møller kinda sideline-ish these days? Kaufman covered and named it in the 2004 edition of his repertoire with a full game, but in the 2019 edition he doesn't name it, and dispatches it quickly with one diagram's worth of analysis and calls 7.Nc3 "a dubious gambit". I think current theory would rather you go down the boring path of 7.Bd2, yes? (It's not necessarily an instant draw if Black plays 7...Nxe4 instead of 7...Bxd2+.)

LOL, that certainly is a funny and accurate way to describe 6.e5. :P Double sharp (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, it's honestly kind of Najdorfy the more you think about it, but with Black's e-pawn missing rather than the c-pawn. 6.Bf4 has emerged as a strong move despite seeming to send the bishop to a spot where one of its diagonals hits a pawn chain, but the old Philidor is still playable. Yes, the Møller is a sideline, but has historical importance. And no, 7.Nbd2 actually came out of nowhere in the 2010s to exceed 7.Bd2, and 7.Nc3 still isn't that much rarer than either one anyway, but 7.Bd2 can still be good if White is happy with a draw or loves queen trades. 6.e5 and even more so 5.d3 are the most important lines. Dayshade (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

So 7.Nbd2 could be Italian Game, new main line of the old main line of the old main line. Also 7.Bd2 often leads to an IQP for White. Dayshade (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Damn, I'm out of date. No surprise, I prefer playing 1.d4 (or I would if I actually played these days...). XD Well, good to know I'm at least right about the general idea that 6.e5 is more important than 6.cxd4 and that the c3-d3 plan is better regarded than the c3-d4 plan, while not being super up-to-date on the details of the cxd4 lines. Thanks for the heads up about 7.Nbd2. :)

To be clear, you mean 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Bf4 in particular? (That was the latest I read on the old Philidor from Kaufman, who gives this against 5...Be7, and as a sideline 6.Be3 and a pseudo-Yugoslav against 5...g6.)

I think "sideline but historically important" is the sort of thing that would fit best in the main article, but on the other hand we somehow have an article on the Rice Gambit for who knows what reason, so I'm not opposed to the idea of a separate article on the Møller. Double sharp (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, that's the right line. Want to nominate Rice Gambit, McDonnell Gambit, Irish Gambit, Konstantinopolsky Opening, and Inverted Hungarian Opening for deletion? Dayshade (talk) 08:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, what the hell are these? I'd want to give them a brief notability check first before doing it myself, but if you nominate them for deletion, I'll be happy to support (or maybe redirecting/merging some of them I guess). XD Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Or go WP:BOLD, like Cobblet did with [1]. There's some salvageable stuff, I guess, and some defenders of the last 3 of those 5 continuing to exist are around. Dayshade (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh and Battambang Opening is a great example. "What the hell is this" indeed. Dayshade (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, as far as I can see the Irish Gambit is basically just well-known for the "I didn't see it was protected" joke (and, uh, beating Pillsbury, but by that logic 1.e4 f6 qualifies for beating Morphy...). Other than that, "what the hell is this" indeed.

P.S. now that I think about it, in terms of traditional names fitting poorly with modern praxis, the distinction between 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 and 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 seems a little academic. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yep, you can get weird names like the Bishop's Opening#Vienna Hybrid Variation. Dayshade (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Imo, since 2.Bc4 encourages 2...Nf6, the "Vienna" line with 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4, which has other continuations, probably shouldn't be considered a Vienna, but it clasically is and usually still is I think. Dayshade (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Heh, so much of this seems to be due to the way chess theory developed with so much focus on 1.e4 e5 at first. If only they were treated like the 1.d4 / 1.Nf3 / 1.c4 world of transpositions...

(Clearly, if I ever want to get up to date on what's going on in 1.e4 land, I should ask you. XD Yes, I know my userpage agrees with Fischer that 1.e4 is best by test, but my impression is that to demonstrate your advantage with 1.e4 you have to play more sharply than you would to demonstrate your advantage with 1.d4 and 2.c4. :P) Double sharp (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, now I wanna know your favorite 1.d4 lines. I know a lot about 1.d4 as well, but less than about 1.e4. Dayshade (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Classical QGD, 4.Qc2 Nimzo, 3.e4 QGA...yeah, I'm kind of boring.

But I don't really play very well (totally out of practice since school), so this is mostly a matter of "I would like to not die in the opening like I would in a full-scale pitched 1.e4 e5 battle, thank you very much". As Black, I'd go with a QGD against 1.d4 and a French against 1.e4 (basically, I have a grudge against my light-squared bishop). :) Double sharp (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I love the 4.Qc2 Nimzo! Do you know the Nimzo-Indian Defence#5.e4 line? And that's interesting you like the French. I almost always play e5 or c5 against e4, but I find anti-Sicilians such a snooze that I started playing c5 less. Love Open Sicilian theory though, and it's again cool how Nc6 Open Sicilians correspond to the Scotch, and d6 Open Sicilians to the Old Philidor, but then e6 ones are their own fascinating weirdness. I think the Advance French with 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 c4 is a fascinating position, but I haven't reached it in a long time probably because I switched to 3.Nc3. In the French, against 3.Nc3, do you like 3...Nf6, 3...Bb4, 3...dxe4 or something else? And if you do play 3...Nf6, how do you reply to 4.Bg5? Dayshade (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The d3 Italian also irritates me in the same way that the anti-Sicilians do, though; I used to try 4...d5 and the 4...h6 5...d6 6...g5 plan in the Two Knights lines with d3 but wasn't happy with the results. Now I do 4...Bc5 and try to do that weird plan with ...a5 and ...Qb8 and ...Qa7 if possible. I also absolutely love the 4.Ng5 two knights with both colors; similarly to the QGA and 7.Nbd2 in the Classical Giuoco Piano, a new move shook things up in the 21st century: 8.Bd3. Dayshade (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

3.e4 QGA is not nearly as boring as the 3.Nf3 QGA. 3...b5 emerged in the last few years due to an exchange sacrifice line with 6...Qb6 that Stockfish loves (but takes a while to figure out), see Queen's Gambit Accepted#3...b5. And that's interesting you go for the classical QGD over the exchange if you allow the Nimzo, but I'd guess you prefer closed positions if you like the French. Dayshade (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh and against d4, I was trying out the Nimzo for a while but rarely could get Qc2 on the board and decided maybe I like keeping the bishop pair after all. Now I usually try to out-theory White in the QGA. Dayshade (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

You're making me run down memory lane considering the last time I played at all was over a year ago. (And I ended up losing disastrously except for one sweet 3.e4 QGA victory as White. Yay!)

I stuck to nabbing the bishop pair immediately. That's basically the main reason I was inclined to play 4.Qc2. :)

The correspondence is fascinating! And yes, that line in the Advance is super fascinating. So, so very much queenside expansion. XD

3...dxe4 for me, literally just because I'm too lazy to have separate responses to 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2. I like 4...Bd7 more than 4...Nd7. You do have to give up the bishop pair, but that's about it, so a fair deal for going second and wanting to avoid a pitched battle in the centre, if you ask me. If I were inclined to play 3...Nf6, I guess I'd have responded to 4.Bg5 with 4...dxe4 and get a Rubinstein-ish situation?

Actually, I think the French is actually pretty good as an 1.e4 response for beginners and people with no time to make a repertoire. Your pieces generally come out to similar squares, you have similar strategic motifs in most positions with the c5 and f6 pawn levers, and so you'll have some general idea what you're doing. I know the Caro is currently more popular on the Internet, but my impression of it is that I have to work more to justify why I didn't move a centre pawn, and in general the LSB isn't that bad within the pawn chain. I like closed positions, yes. (I was indeed thinking for a while that it would be more logical for me to play the exchange QGD, but I couldn't be bothered to fix my repertoire. It's fundamentally a lot about what I learned first and the first Queen's Gambit I learned as White was the Classical, ergo I stuck with it even though now I agree it doesn't make total sense. XD) Double sharp (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(And if you wondered how vindicated I felt whenever Ding played the French in the World Championship: very. :P) Double sharp (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Interesting though, cause the Rubinstein (3...dxe4 4.Nxe4) opens the game, like a Scotch or Sicilian with the pawn taking pawn and a knight recapturing, but mirrored. And yeah, that was cool. Also, curious about any ideas you have for improving opening pages. Dayshade (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

And yeah 4.Bg5 dxe4 seems to give a (very slightly) better version of the Rubinstein, but you have to allow 4.e5 (intending f4). But I figured you would've liked 4.e5 if you liked closed positions. Dayshade (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It opens the game somewhat, yes, so I have to balance it a little against how much I don't feel like having separate responses for 3.Nc3 and 3.Nd2. 4.e5 is just fine for me, really – the main issue was really that 4.Bg5 Bb4 is not up my alley at all, and if I'm going to play 4.Bg5 dxe4, which is so Rubinstein-like, then why don't I just sidestep having something for the Tarrasch by playing the Rubinstein outright?

To me a good chess opening page should give the history, transpositions (if that makes sense), the general strategy for each side, and the main variations. And in general the main variations should be roughly proportional to how main they actually are, with something of an exception for historically significant lines that aren't significant anymore (looking at you, 1001 lines in the King's Gambit – incidentally, my vague impression when I looked at that when considering and then rejecting the idea of returning to 1...e5 was "objectively 3...Nf6 seems the best way to hold on to the pawn, but practically I'd forget my preparation, so returning it instantly with 3...d5 seems more practical and Black is comfortable enough anyway"). Double sharp (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I wouldn't let the King's Gambit stop you from trying out ...e5 again if you can handle the Ruy, Italian, and Scotch (or instead of those, the Petrov). Personally I play ...g5 in the KGA, but you need to memorize a ton. Dayshade (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

What are some of your current favorite opening pages/sections of pages for what reasons? Just link some that come to mind, no need to overthink it. Dayshade (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(For me going down the main line of the Steinitz with 5.f4 is "sure, bring it on". Unfortunately, the problem is that against 3.Nd2, the possibility for White to play c3 makes playing in Steinitzian fashion in the closed Tarrasch less appealing. You are conceding a lot of space, and White still gets to have an unblocked c-pawn? Not quite my idea of fun, I want to make White pay a little price. And if I play 3...c5, then I'm opening up the position and at that point I'm like "dammit, if I'm going to do that anyway, play the Rubinstein". Because, well, 3.Nd2 is rather less theoretical than 3.Nc3. The very fact that to me going down the main-line Steinitz seems fun is probably a good reason for White to avoid getting into this against a Steinitz-head. XD) Double sharp (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I guess the same thing you said about the Quiet/Modern/Slow Italian cutting down on theory occurs with your French repertoire and is a priority for you, which is totally fair. Dayshade (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(Incidentally, 3.Nd2 Nc6 is also a thing I looked at as a possible response. Blocking the c-pawn failed to excite me in the end, but I will say that it is not as silly as it looks to block it here.) Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(I will add also: the Fort Knox Rubinstein has one really nice advantage in that it is quite easy to learn. You just kind of develop with 4...Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Nd7 7.0-0 Ngf6 8.Ng3 Be7, and then you wait for White to play Qe2 and respond by exchanging on f3 to solve all your space problems at the cost of the bishop pair, before developing your queen and centralizing the rooks just like every beginner's primer makes you dream of. Really, I think the French is an excellent beginners' choice for a semi-open defence. XD) Double sharp (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]