Talk:Grob's Attack

Old talk

I'm not a Grob player, so I'm not up on this. In the variation mentioned in the article, 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4? 3.c4, does 2...Bxg4? really deserve the question mark? I think this move is played by some strong players (at least the ones who like to snatch pawns), and so perhaps a more accurate assessment might be 2...Bxg4!?. Any thoughts? Quale 21:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. Also, "spike opening" only gets 910 hits on google, of which the first 9 out of 10 have nothing to do with chess. I suspect that this may be a very limited regional reference, and as such has no business in this article. I have removed it accordingly. Themindset 09:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Spike Opening" refers to the label Grob applied to this opening in his newspaper column.As such, I am going to reinstate this aspect of the wiki. RBPierce 17:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

MCO 14 refers to a specific variation as the spike J. M. 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Only white?

Why is Grob's only used for white? I've tried it a lot and it works pretty well for black too. Dan Guan 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Grob's Attack" is the name given to the opening move 1.g4. By definition it's an opening for White. 1.e4 g5 is a different opening, sometimes called the Borg defence (from "Grob" spelled backwards) or the Basman defence (after Michael Basman). 213.249.135.36 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Romford Countergambit

This is 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4 d4 4. Bxb4 Nd7 5. Bxa8 Qxa8 6. f3 d3. At the moment there is a diagram of the position after 6...d3 but no explanation or discussion of this line in the article. 91.105.5.242 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Czech animadversion

Hello,

1. I'm sorry, but my English is terrible
2. In article is written "In Czechoslovakia 1.g4 is called Fric's Opening..."
   1. Czechoslovakia end in 1992, now it's Czech Republic and Slovak Republic
   2. I'm from Czech Republic and i know something about chess and chess openings, but i never heard "Fric Opening".

--78.102.195.5 (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC) If you want to answer me, please write here: cs:User talk:Duff, thank you.

2...c6

This article currently has no discussion of 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 c6, which I thought was the main line. 91.107.140.122 (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fool's mate

Why is there a section on Fool's Mate here? Fool's Mate can also arise from Bird's Opening but that article doesn't even mention it -- and rightly so, since Fool's Mate is a curiosity with no relevance to actual play. Worse, this section makes it sound like the only reason for 1... e5 after 1. g4 is the hope of Fool's Mate; this is far from true as some writers recommend 1... e5 as the best response. 91.107.160.156 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'll cut it down to one sentence and put it in the see also. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

The article claims that 1.g4 is competitive with 1.h4 as White's worst first move. I find that hard to believe (see Barnes Opening). I do not have access to the source. Can anyone verify? Banedon (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not claim that "1.g4 is competitive with 1.h4 as White's worst first move" at all. What the article claims is that IM John Watson wrote that sentence and, since an inline citation is given, it does not appear dubious to me, even if one need not agree with his assessment. Dubious tag removed therefore. GregorB (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Even if IM John Watson wrote exactly that, in the Barnes Opening page there is a corresponding claim that Edmar Mednis argued that 1.f3 is the worst possible White first move. Clearly, they can't both be correct. The question really is "did IM John Watson really write this and, if so, was there any context that has been missed?". I'm going to reinsert the dubious tag for this reason. Banedon (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to quantify objectively what is the White's single worst first move, so Mednis opting for 1.f3 is not really a contradiction, it is a matter of opinion. This is why I still think the {{dubious}} tag is inappropriate: since Watson's statement cannot be falsified (it is his opinion, it is duly presented as such, and that is that), there would be no legitimate way to remove the tag. If, on the other hand, the question is did Watson really write this, the correct tag would be {{Verify source}}. GregorB (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Or it could be that Watson's opinion is WP:FRINGE. In the same way arguing that 1.g4 is stronger than 1.e4 is definitely fringe. The Barnes Opening article gives more information on why it is considered inferior (opens diagonals, deprives the g1-knight of its best square, etc), but Watson's quote doesn't say anything about why the Grob is inferior. I still favour the dubious tag, but if you think verify source is better feel free to change it. Banedon (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right that your concern is best expressed by the {{dubious}} tag, although in this case I don't think the tag is justified as I explain below. There are three questions:

1. Does the text accurately reflect the source?
2. Is the source reliable for the subject matter in question (WP:RS)?
3. Does the source violate one of the other concerns (for example WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE) that might disqualify it?

Question 1 would call for {{verify source}}. I haven't checked it, but let's assume for the moment that the quote accurately records what Watson wrote. (This definitely needs to be verified if there's any question about it, but my guess is that this is an accurate quote.) Question 2 I would answer in the affirmative: John Watson is a recognized expert in chess theory and his books are reliable sources. Note in particular that when used as a direct quote about what he thinks he is exceptionally reliable, as John Watson is without a doubt a reliable source for what John Watson thinks about chess openings. In fact no better source for John Watson's opinion is possible than Watson himself. The quote does not claim to present an absolute truth or a mathematical theorem about chess, the quote tells the reader what John Watson, as a recognized expert in chess theory, thinks about the Grob. For question 3 I think we'll just have to disagree. This is definitely a question that could merit a {{dubious}} tag, but in this case I don't think it's warranted. Whether 1.g4 is better or worse than 1.f3 is not a matter that can be settled by proof, and experts may have differing opinions about chess openings. You disagree with Watson, but since you haven't offered any evidence that Watson's opinion of the Grob is verifiably wrong or that his opinion is far outside the mainstream view of chess experts, I don't think the {{dubious}} tag is justified. That said, if Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4 talks about 1.f3 then that might address your question about why Watson doesn't consider 1.f3 to be clearly worse than 1.g4 and 1.h4. Quale (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think #3 is the main concern I have, and the policy in question is WP:FRINGE. It's true that we can't argue 1.g4 to be better or worse than 1.f3 as rigorously as we can in science, but we can still say something about their relative merits. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be able to say 1.e4 better than 1.g4 either! The question then is whether Watson's opinion is fringe, and based on the Barnes Opening article I think there's a case for it being fringe. That article cites two authors who argue for 1.f3 being the worst: Edmar Mednis and Bent Larsen. Both these authors are GMs (Larsen was one of the world's best too), which should make them more authoritative than Watson. That article also gives reasons for why 1.f3 is the worst, while this one doesn't say anything. The best thing to do here in my opinion is to check Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4. I don't have access to this book unfortunately. If someone does, please do. Banedon (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

If I didn't make it clear, I think there is absolutely zero chance you can demonstrate that Watson's assessment of the Grob is a fringe view. It belongs in the article, and the tag should go. The stuff you point to in the Barnes article doesn't come anywhere close to proving your point. You need something much stronger than that to justify a {{dubious}} tag. I think this kind of question can be fun for chess fans to discuss on the talk page (while remaining aware that this falls outside the purpose of WP:TALK which is discuss things that may improve the article rather than to merely chat about topics of interest to the editors), but there's nothing to warrant a tag or a change to the article. If we can find a WP:RS that says the Grob isn't so bad, that opinion should also be represented in the article alongside the Watson quote. Quale (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You are sounding pretty aggressive, just saying. You say there is "absolutely zero chance" that Watson's assessment of the Grob is fringe, and yet you didn't provide any arguments for such other than "John Watson is a recognized expert in chess theory", which you have provided no sources for. You argue that the stuff in the Barnes article don't come close to proving that 1.f3 is worse than 1.g4, and maybe so, but it's better than nothing (which is what you have provided for the reverse assertion that 1.g4 is worse than 1.f3). You say that "if we can find a WP:RS that says the Grob isn't so bad [then something]", and there are two in the Barnes Opening article, yet I would not insert either into this article because counterarguments to the Grob being the worst possible first move are irrelevant to the Grob itself. It would belong in a worst possible first move in chess article, and we don't have one.

Also to keep things in perspective, we are arguing over a dubious tag, and as far as I can tell, neither of us have read the source in question. If you want to activate our WP:DR process over such a thing, be my guest. Banedon (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Banedon, get over yourself. The two sentences in the Barnes opening say absolutely nothing about the Grob, and it's hard for me to understand how you can't comprehend that. You are insisting that your opinion on chess theory trumps John Watson's. That won't fly. Quale (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC) Also, are you sure you know what Larsen wrote about 1.f3? I don't have his book, but even if I did I don't read Danish, so I would have trouble verifying it. Quale (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did I ever express an opinion on either opening? My God. You are making me exasperated enough that I'm seriously considering activating the DR process myself. Over a dubious tag. What. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I certainly do not consider IM Watson's view of 1.g4 "fringe." I think virtually every strong player would agree that 1.g4 is a very weak opening move, and in contention for the "worst first move" crown. It weakens the kingside and does little to fight for the center. I think that if you asked strong players about 1.f3 they would have a similar reaction: one of the worst first moves, possibly the worst, weakens the kingside, takes away the knight's best square, much inferior to moves like 1.e4, 1.d4, and 1.Nf3 that occupy a center square and/or fight for control over center squares. I suspect that many or most strong players would consider 1.g4 and 1.f3 to be around equally weak, and consider both to be serious contenders for the "worst move" sobriquet. Although I realize that it's "original research" and thus not citeable in Wikipedia, if you put the positions after 1.g4 and after 1.f3 into an engine, I think you'll find that both positions are assessed as giving Black a significant advantage (around .8), whereas moves like 1.d4 and 1.e4 give White a .2 advantage or better. Watson's view of 1.g4 is a matter of opinion, and well within the mainstream of informed opinion, which has arrived at the consensus that 1.g4 is a really bad move. Thus, Watson's opinion is not "fringe." Krakatoa (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Watson also says 1.g4 is competitive with 1.h4 as the worst move though. If 1.f3 and 1.g4 are the main candidates for the worst move, then Watson comparing 1.g4 with 1.h4 should be a red flag as to his reliability as a source. Banedon (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Watson has devoted more than a few seconds to the question of whether 1.f3 or 1.h4 or 1.g4 is worse, why would he? (That's what wikipedia editors are for!) He is a respected writer on the game and his comments simply reflect the mainstream opinion of 1.g4. Watson books are good quality sources for chess articles in general. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Unorthodox Openings (Benjamin, Joel; Schiller, Eric (1987). Unorthodox Openings. Macmillan Publishing Company. ISBN 0-02-016590-0.) puts 1.g4 into Part II: The Bad and 1.f3 & 1.h4 into Part III: The Ugly, writing re 1.h4 (p. 103):

This opening has been played by Myers. He once wrote that "If there were an election for the worst possible first move then 1.P-KR4 [1.h4] would have excellent winning chances." Despite the fact that this move is thoroughly unmotivated and creates weaknesses with only vague promises of future potential [...], we still think it is merely Ugly, and that 1.g4 is worse.

Re the Grob (1.g4), p. 75:

There are three basic strategies for White. One is the support of the g4 square with h3, a second is pressure against d5, or on the h1–a8 diagonal, keeping Black from capturing the pawn at g4, and the last is the advance of the h-pawn. We are not impressed by any of these, and feel that the weakening of the kingside is unjustified.

FYI, --IHTS (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edited the section to include above source, sidestepped the issue of which first move is the worst by simply not mentioning 1.h4 (or 1.f3). If anyone disagrees feel free to edit the section. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grob's Attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701133202/http://www.chessville.com/downloads/misc_downloads.htm to http://www.chessville.com/downloads/misc_downloads.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Question mark

User:Fasscass has added a question mark to the very first occurrence of 1. g4 in this article.

This was discussed briefly in that editor's talk page, but I am trying to move the discussion here.

A few years ago, in this talk page, there was an argument about how the quotation from John Watson was to be treated in this article. Watson echoes a common opinion, that 1. g4 is just a bad move. The outcome was that we are quoting him, without any special qualification, although we also note that there have been masters, such as Grob and Michael Basman, who liked 1. g4.

Putting our own question mark on 1. g4, as opposed to quoting Watson, is "speaking in Wikipedia's voice". As a rule, this is not credible. Wikipedia is a bunch of anonymous guys sitting at computer terminals. Why should any reader give credence to Wikipedia's opinion? So if there is a question mark, as a rule, there should be a citation to a reliable source.

This is why there aren't too many question marks and exclams in the articles about chess openings. A footnoted reference to a reliable source is a lot of trouble to go to, just for a thumbs-up or thumbs-down opinion. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't cite chapter and verse but apparently Larsen (hardly a conventional player) gives it a question mark, so that's pretty damning. Still, it's hard to argue that reliable sources in general assign the move a question mark. A ?! or a !? maybe. But there isn't really a RS consensus that 1.g4 is a ? move. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t played competitive chess for years which means my knowledge of the assessment of the move is probably way outdated. However, if reliable sources disagree on how it should be assessed, then the “?” seems inappropriate. Perhaps something about this disagreement should be added to the article as properly cited and attributed text or expanded upon if already there to reflect any recent developments (e.g. sourced critical commentary of recent assessments made by computers), but it seems a bad idea, in principle, to add “!”, “?” and the like to moves in Wikipedia articles unless they are part of a complete game score where a move might be assessed in a specific context. Wikipedia articles, in my opinion, aren’t chess opening books per se even though many may see and use them as such in some way. The addition of the “?” was a WP:BOLD edit made in good faith, but reverting per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD is also something that can be done in good faith. The WP:ONUS still falls upon the person who wants to make the edit to establish a consensus for doing so if others disagree and there’s no strong policy or guideline based reason the edit needs to be made. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we accept Stockfish and Leela as reliable sources? I don't see why not since they're stronger than any human, but if we do then we can easily cite engine analysis for the question mark. Banedon (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing, we don't accept engine analysis as reliable sources. Unless it's published in a reliable source, it's original research. WP:CHESSENGINE - yeah I wrote it but it reflects current wp chess and wikipedia consensus. WP:CHESSNOTATION is also relevant. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

He did it in a forum post, but Larry Kaufman sees fit to give it a question mark. He wrote (2019): I think that the best we can do at the present time to tell if a given opening position (not one that is obviously apt to be solved by brute force) is a win or a draw is to run the strongest version of Lc0 on it for a few minutes on a 2080 or better GPU with win prob. display. The threshold for a won position is probably about 70% or perhaps slightly higher, 71 or 72%, based on everything I've observed. For 1 g4?, it is about 68% for Black with 1...d5, so probably not a forced win although close enough to the line to leave that as a possibility. I think this statement falls under WP:SPS, so I added it to the article.

FWIW, engines certainly suggest that Benjamin and Schiller are right: 1.h4 is ugly, but 1.g4 is bad. Double sharp (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

As I read them, both WP:SPS and WP:RSSELF pretty clearly discourage you from using a comment in a blog post as if it were a reliable source. They make an allowance for a comment by an "established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." But Kaufman is not an expert in the Grob attack and has never (AFAIK) published about that opening. What were you thinking? Bruce leverett (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

He has. In The Kaufman Repertoire for Black and White he wrote (p. 8): So you won’t find analysis on how to beat the Grob (1.g4?) or any other obviously inferior move at any point, and I may not always point out why some seemingly good move is not played. Usually the answer is some elementary tactic; if you can’t find it yourself ask any modern engine to solve the question for you. I admit that he never wrote a whole book about the Grob, but has any GM? Double sharp (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

This is at least from an actual published book, but, come on, it doesn't look very substantial. I'm not trying to defend the Grob, I'm just trying to avoid using silly lightweight sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is kind of a catch-22, isn't it? Authors who don't think the Grob deserves to be taken seriously are hardly going to give it any more weight than that. Given that the the average opinion of strong players is that 1.g4 is just a bad move (e.g. Schiller and Benjamin, Watson, Martin; or more briefly, van der Sterren FCO, Carlsen in an interview, Keene), ignoring them pretty much means taking it more seriously than average opinion thinks it deserves. (BTW van der Sterren treats it even less substantially than Kaufman: he doesn't even give it the dignity of naming it.) Now I admit that Kaufman in his post is going even beyond this average level of condemnation by saying that it might be on the brink of theoretically lost. But I think it's not really problematic to use opening repertoires as sources when they cursorily dismiss 1.g4. Indeed, that's probably the best place you could find the average current strong-player opinion on this first move, which seems to be that it is worth being cursorily dismissed. Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how this can be treated as a reliable source for the evaluation of 1.g4 either. Are we supposed to take from this that 1.h3 and 1.a4 are just as good as 1.e4?? I'm generally against talking about engines and "centipawns" in any discussion of an opening. They should be written from a human-centric viewpoint. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It surprised me too, but Stockfish has apparently analyzed all those moves to a 0.00 position. Banedon (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Even 1.e4? That's certainly not what Kaufman claimed in his latest opening repertoire based on Komodo and Lc0. Surely 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, and 1.g3 are +/= rather than =. Double sharp (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Who even runs that site, and what engines do they even use? There's just no indication anywhere that it's a reliable source. The broader principle that we should be writing about openings from a human point of view stands too. "Centipawn" is not a normal chess term. If there is a reliable source that specifically says "engine X considers 1.g4 White's worst possible opening move" that would be ok, but not this mess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot find anyone saying that. Even Kaufman's suggestion that 1.g4 might be close to the border between drawn and lost is just in that forum post, and consensus here apparently doesn't see that as falling under the exception in WP:SPS. But I suppose Kaufman is not sure even there, so not much information is lost if we omit it. Double sharp (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not going on the page, but reading the last pages of that forum thread shows that Kaufman apparently changed his mind this year to the "1.g4 is probably a forced win for Black" side: It's impossible to prove, but I think it is likely that 1.g4 is losing. Current Komodo Dragon with a deep search gives it a slightly worse score than it gives to White with b2, c2, d2, or e2 removed, all of which are most likely losing for White, based on both general chess wisdom and on actual playouts by top engines. We haven't reached the point where we can answer questions like this definitively by analysis, we can only play them out at high level many times and go by whether the losing side holds half the time or not. So for now I suppose we do nothing, and add that iff he ever publishes that result in one of his books. Double sharp (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

What do the numbers mean? If chess were solved, every move could be evaluated as W, L, or D, and that would be that. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The site/database is run by Bojun Guo and the engine used is Stockfish. The info pages do a bad job of explaining how it works though. I'm told it's not "standard" Stockfish to high depth, which does prefer 1. e4, 1. d4 and 1. Nf3. Instead it does something like "conduct a brief search, then explore all the five best moves, then go back and explore the three best moves" - something like that. The goal is to explore the opening tree, not to find the best moves (see info pages). That's why it is exploring 1. g4 since left to its own devices Stockfish will prune that move. But it's still surprising to me that the most common first moves are rated 0.00, and for the purposes of claiming the Grob is busted DBCN might not be the best database to cite either since one would rather run normal Stockfish on 1. g4 to high depth. Banedon (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence citing that database – violation of WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Cobblet (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

They just mean that one side has an advantage, scaled so that 1 point is roughly the sort of advantage you'd get for being up a pawn without compensation. Naturally if chess were solved we could ditch those, but since we can't, they at least provide some kind of guide. If you're up +1 you're obviously more likely to win than if you're up +0.5. So you can think of them as roughly correlating to expected winning percentages from that position (obviously assuming the resulting play is conducted with some level of common sense). That's why Kaufman can say in that post that 1.g4 is likely lost for White given the eval, while also admitting that no one can prove it. But I suppose this is kind of moot until/unless he publishes it in somewhere more reliable. Double sharp (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am opposed to using any annotation symbols in the lead section of any chess opening article, even for something as straightforward as scholar's mate. Using a symbol in the lead is not a meaningful way of summarizing the article's content unless some additional explanation is provided in the lead itself; but if an explanation is provided, then the symbol is redundant. Moreover, even if the evaluation represented by the symbol can be cited to RSs, we should avoid anything in the lead that might give a reader the impression that we are editorializing. Cobblet (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Played" in TCEC

"The Grob was played in the superfinal of the 12th Top Chess Engine Championship season" - wasn't exactly "played" in the sense that any of the engines actually chose that move, it was rather one of the predetermined openings. 93.139.157.19 (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Stupid lines that nobody plays

Do we really need all these names that Eric Schiller or whoever made up for lines that nobody plays? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The larger question is, how do we judge whether the name of an opening or of a variation belongs in Wikipedia? We have all discussed the notion of "reliable source" many times, but, looking through our articles about openings, I think there are various places where we don't cite a reliable source for the claim that such-and-such variation has the name so-and-so. This problem presumably comes up in areas of intellectual endeavor other than chess, and I wonder how they handle it, and if they handle it more or less haphazardly than we do. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Any variation names not found in standard recognized works should require two reliable and independent sources. Reddit, online chess forums, Twitter, and any YouTube videos not produced by FIDE GMs are automatically disqualified as sources. Quale (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The platforms like chess.com, lichess, chesstempo etc tend to copy each other and perpetuate names like the Coca Cola Gambit that you'll never find in any reputable chess book. There are a lot of "internet names". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, and silliness in wikipedia gets copied into other websites. Those are then cited as sources and the dubious claims become firmly rooted in wikipedia and are hard to remove. Quale (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The name "Romford Countergambit" is given by Joel Benjamin and Eric Schiller in the 1987 book Unorthodox Openings, where it is credited to Romford, Essex player Nick Pelling. That one looks reasonably well established. The earliest reference I found to "Coca Cola Gambit" was a German forum post from 2008, with no print sources, or really any reliable sources at all for the name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Different play to 2. h3 or 2. Bg2

(Newb here.)

I found a chess book at a local library titled Niejasna Teoria Szachów: g2g4!? by the author "Uniwersytet Szachowy". I don't know what language it was in, but I could recognise the expanded algebraic game notation and the chess pictures. The move chart at the end of the book does have "g2g4!? d7d5 h2h3" (White's plan #1 as mentioned in the article) and "g2g4!? d7d5 Bf1g2" (White's plan #2 as mentioned in the article), but it additionally mentions the lines "g2g4 d7d5 e2e3" (further in the chart, it's extended with "e7e5 Bf1g2 Nb8c6 Nb1c3 d5d4 Nc3e4 d4xe3 f2xe3 h7h5 g4xh5 Qd8h4+ Ne4g3 Bc8g4 Bg2xc6+ b7xc6 Ng1f3 Bg4xh5 Nf3xh4 Bh5xd1 Nh4g6 Rh8h6 Ng6xf8 Bd1xc2 b2b3 Ke8xf8 Bc1b2 Ra8e8 Ra1c1 Bc2d3 Bb2a3+ Ng8e7 Rc1c3 Re8d8 Ba3xe7+ Kf8xe7 Rc3xd3 Rd8xd3 Ng3f5+ Ke7f6 Nf5xh6 g7xh6 końcowy etap") and "g2g4 d7d5 g4g5". 1. g4 d5 2. e3 appears to be a playable set of moves that supports g4. 1. g4 d5 2. g5 is also playable, trying to hinder Black's kingside knight's development as much as possible as well as protecting the pawn by evading.

Can we use this information somehow? I've used the second line myself multiple times in a chess tournament and it works well, but that's probably not enough proof to include it in this article.

When I asked about the book's origins and how reliable the author was, though, the librarians there were just entirely unaware of the book's existence, and they believe someone had probably left it there by accident. And, when I search up "Niejasna Teoria Szachów: g2g4!?" or "Uniwersytet Szachowy" online, I can't find any related results, so if someone finds anything about the book or whoever Szachowy was or is, that'd be nice. Also, I may have read the accents incorrectly as the book is pretty badly worn.

Also, as a Grob's Opening player myself (for the sole reason of proving it isn't the worst opening), the "White has three main plans: to support the g4 pawn with h3; pressure against d5 or on the h1–a8 diagonal, [...]; or advancing the h-pawn in a kingside attack" feels a little bit limited. As for both exaggerated fianchettos (x. b4, x. g4), the pawn serves as a way to kick or block the opponent's knight on the corresponding side, as well as taking space on that side, and is not just a sacrifice. Quazkie (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The language is no mystery, it's Polish, and "Uniwersytet Szachowy" means "chess university". Do you have any more details, like year of publication, city of publication? Maybe the actual author or authors are mentioned somewhere. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I've come across a copy of this exact book sometime not too long ago on a trip to Britain in a library. Pretty sure the mentioned 'chess university' is a society with no individual writers working on it and this book is a part of a book series on not-well-known openings that they had started. But that would count as 'own research' by Wikipedia's standards, and since from what I know the so-called 'chess university' was an in-person club with no single address and not official, the book wouldn't have been photocopied and so the book can't be counted as valid evidence online, which is unfortunate considering that that book is probably rare. Also unfortunate that the authors are unmentioned, this was probably a form of public domain without credit work.

I think that Niejasna Teoria Szachów: g2g4!? was published 8th of November 1937 or 11th of September 1937 as well as maybe being published in 1837 and being reprinted. Sorry about being vague but it's hard to get much from just a '8|11|37' on the back besides assuming dd/mm/yy. People I asked said that it was originally published in Torun, although I believe that it probably was just printed on a rented press and passed around or something similar.

Everything here would be counted as 'own research' though.

p.s. Quazkie, I think you meant move table.

p.s.s. And the book is red-orange if that helps. I have pictures of the front and back if that could help, but I doubt it since there is nothing else than what Quazkie mentioned on the front, and '8|11|37' on the back, alongside the letters 'S', 'T', 'R', 'J' 'L', and 'M' in that order, which is most likely just a copy number or something like it. 192.0.217.147 (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you who'd be interested, Edward Winter the chess historian. You should write to him at his site chesshistory.com and tell him everything you know about the book, include photos/scans if possible. Worldcat.org doesn't list it, and it seems even the Polish National Library doesn't have it. It's an extremely rare book all right. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Cult following?

All openings have their own cult followings technically. Why add it only for the Grob page? It feels like an unnecessary detail. 192.0.217.147 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The intended meaning is that it has a small but very vocal/passionate following, and mainstream opinion is very much against them. Kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How do we substantiate this? I mean the "vocal/passionate" part. I don't have a problem with saying that it's outside the mainstream. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a Talk Page not an article space, I'm not using that description in the article nor proposing that we do. But look at the profile presumably of the person who raised the matter of the Polish book in the previous thread and you'll see what I mean. [1]. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article starts with, "Although it has a cult following, ..." This is what I have doubts about. We mention Basman and Skembris, and other historical figures and names, but that doesn't amount to a "cult following", not even with Quazkie added. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to this description, if you think it's too colorful, unencyclopedic, whatever, go ahead and edit. But it does strike me as one of those openings whose advocates will stick with it to their dying day regardless of any evidence that it's bad, which is what makes it "cultish". Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is another opening that attracts a similar type of follower. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I should probably clarify myself: what I meant was that shouldn't all openings with "cult followings" also include something similar in their page, or no pages should have it? The Modern Benoni fell to the Taimanov, the King's Gambit to a kicked kingside knight by the g-pawn, and the Blackmar-Diemer to the problems usually encountered by doing something as unsound as sacrificing two out of three pawns that defend White's king, and yet all three are still played by their own community. None of these openings' Wikipedia pages mention a "cult following", so wouldn't it be better to mention Grob loyalists similarly to how BDG followers are described as "Blackmar-Diemer fanatics", or the other way around? Not only to avoid the negative and more extreme connotation of cults but to also try and maintain consistent terminology across pages. I would say that the Grob, Modern Benoni, King's Gambit, and BDG all have followers, fanatics, and loyalists, but not exactly cult followings. Sure, there are a specific few people who tend to over-praise an opening, but 150 or so especially vocal Grob loyalists in clubs on chess.com and some writers and masters out of the tens of millions who disagree with them doesn't amount to that.

Checking the Wikipedia page on cult followings itself, there are multiple differences. Most Grob loyalists do not have an emotional connection to the opening since it's just a pawn on the g-file moving to the fourth rank on the first move and nothing much more than that. And there's no exact unified "Grob community". They can't even agree on what to play after 1. g4 d5, or whether the point is to gambit g4, or to attack the kingside knight, or whatever they said. Or even if the Grob is "not the worst opening", "just okay" or "the best opening". I'd say this "cult following" is just made up of people who end up playing the same opening for whatever reason and don't exactly match the definition. 192.0.217.147 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, go ahead and change the wording as you see fit. The Polish book is far more interesting to me anyway. Which library did you find it in? Do you have pictures or scans of it? And how is it that only two guys from Canada know of its existence? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I only have a picture of the front and back cover. I originally found the book in Leicester Central Library in a gray bag left on a seat and expectably the online bookfinder returns zero hits. If I remember correctly if you enter and turn right and then turn right again into the weirdly named 'way out' area that's where it was. I don't think it's from the library and I am guessing it's probably not there anymore either. I'll try and check whenever I plan another vacation to Britain. And I don't think I'm the only person who knows about it since I also asked two staff members and a friend about it. I'm sure that somewhere online there's something about this book, unless it's just a random unique print. I also doubt the book is worth much because there are no credible or notable authors -- or authors at all -- mentioned and the staff member who told me about the 'chess university' club said it was very small and didn't last very long.

Also, I'm not from Canada, I'm from Texas. And how do you know Quazkie's from Canada? 192.0.217.147 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Your IP has you in Orleans, Ontario, near Ottawa. Quazkie's chess.com profile (assuming it's the same person) says he's from Canada. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The flag attached to Quazkie's chess.com account is the Czech flag if I'm not mistaken.

And I have no idea how to turn my VPN off after watching hockey last year so I guess that's why my IP's in Canada?

Also, I believe the book is fake. It matches stockfish analysis, and also uses a font that didn't exist in either possible date arrangement, as well as exactly matching a forum post made by lichess user Alaric_K_G about a book he wrote on chess openings. After I asked him, he deleted the post so I don't have evidence. I consider that suspicious since I didn't get an answer either. 192.0.217.147 (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

references to engines etc

I'm not happy with this recent development. Wikipedia's chess articles should explain things in anthropocentric terms, not with references to engine analysis, unless that's what a reliable source says. And the talk.chess forum is not a reliable source, nor is some programmer's github. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't call forums, githubs, or chess engines reliable as the people who manage those can change them to change Wikipedia as well. If there's a more reliable and trustworthy human-based source that isn't a wiki or forum, I would be okay with it.

Also, should we remove the heading and the body text? I remember there being an argument somewhere saying that "just because an engine says so doesn't mean it's true" and I don't want Wikipedia to automatically pick a side by referencing engines. 192.0.217.147 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to merge that section with our current analysis section, maybe reorganize it a little (e.g. 1...d5 and 1...e5 subheadings). Don't want to trash the guy's work entirely, but it must be sourced. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)