Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Project Page talk
talk
Assessment statistics talk
Review talk
Chess Portal talk

Skip to: the bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Merger discussion for Konstantinopolsky Opening

[edit]

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Konstantinopolsky Opening—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Khiikiat (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check my contribs for quite a few other merger proposals, such as GĂśring Attack and Swiss Gambit. Dayshade (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two requests:
Could you list all your merger proposals here, not just those two? Or perhaps list them in WP:CHESS.
Could you start each of the merger discussions, by starting a new topic in the talk page and writing your rationale for wanting to merge? I am interested and sympathetic, but it should be you that starts the ball rolling.
Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The merger rationales are largely identical, just being stubs about relatively non-notable openings that can do well becoming a section on their parent article; many are also undersourced. I linked talk pages where I did post something separate but it wasn't anything particularly important. Dayshade (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wouldn't say I'm invested in this or anything. Just trying to be helpful as Max mentioned he had been meaning to do this sort of thing for some articles. Dayshade (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe I'm now a WikiHunter. Dayshade (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and editing from where this originated among my MWOTs at Talk:Ruy Lopez, these are the most deserving ones:

And here are some I'm not sure about. Max already said Jerome Gambit should stay.

Those were the most deserving ones I saw from going through the list. There are also several very notable gambits that don't have an article or even their own 2nd level header, like Vienna Gambit, which is interesting. Dayshade (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For McDonnell Gambit, looks like it should be moved to be an article about a specific historical game, and then the rest can be merged into KGCV I'd say. Dayshade (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, for anyone who reads this, feel free to take a look at and reply on (and about my revisions to the pages if desired) Talk:Vienna Game, Talk:Ruy Lopez, Talk:Petrov's Defence, Talk:Four Knights Game. Dayshade (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GĂśring Attack, here are a couple of comments.
Are you saying I should add a template note like the one at the top of Berlin Defence to the section header for GĂśring Gambit and the new section header (whenever I add it to Evans Gambit) for GĂśring Attack for disambiguation? I'm down to do that although I honestly don't think the crossreferencing would be necessary, especially because it's so rarely done otherwise, and they don't have literally identical names (unlike for some Steinitz Variations).
And here is the diff for GĂśring Attack: [1] looks like they were just referring to that list of moves; there was never any commentary. Clearcut merge I'd say. Dayshade (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that the cross-referencing I suggested is optional. But GĂśring is not as notable as, say, Steinitz, and when I saw that we were discussing his variation of the Evans, I first thought, "Aren't they confused? His variation is part of the Scotch." Maybe just me. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just feel like it'd spam the page if we did that consistently. A footnote might be better, but I think it's fine. Also, the names are not very important, I think they're just nice for being able to refer back to with anchorable names, which is the main reason why I'm hesitant about Max's trimming of them sometime. There is a $200 curated online source that I think might have coined some of these. Are there any of the proposed mergers that you'd say you oppose? And what is the general philosophy on when merging is worth the effort? Dayshade (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Konstantinopolsky has been very fruitful. I think GĂśring Attack, Swiss Gambit, and Balogh Defense are clearcut merges so if there are no objections I'll merge soonish. Probably the same for the short variation pages. I've also had no objections to merging Scotch Game, Classical Variation back in to Scotch but please do lmk if you disagree. Dayshade (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I performed the merges of GĂśring Attack and Swiss Gambit as no one objected. Dayshade (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian nationalism and overemphasis on medals/team events

[edit]

Does anyone else see an issue with this? Even the whole "golden age of Serbian chess" narrative seems problematic to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how the first two issues you bring up are related. Regarding your last point, if reliable sources support such a narrative and it isn't given undue weight, I don't see a problem. Cobblet (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What if they're written by people who are Serbian nationalists though? (idk if they are) Dayshade (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So long as they're following Wikipedia's WP:CONDUCT and content policies, their personal beliefs are irrelevant. Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct. Cobblet (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To figure out what you had in mind, I looked at Svetozar Gligoric, and at the talk page and contrib list of the guy who has done a lot of editing there. Anywhere else I should be looking? I am about to do some traveling and may not be able to make intelligent comments until Sunday or later. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "golden age of Serbian chess" and "golden generation of Serbian chess" are not sourced, generally unencyclopedic, and indicative of a nationalistic bias. However, the article as a whole is not badly constructed or organized. In other discussions, we have concluded that an overemphasis on medals is not good in chess articles, but in Svetozar Gligorić it appears that a balanced selection of events he won or earned high places in is summarized -- correct me if I am neglecting something. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only Gligoric. Several other articles about Yugoslav/Serbian players like Ivkov, Matanovic, Trifunovic, Kostic etc have had the same treatment. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of ECO codes for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ECO codes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ECO codes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Khiikiat (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping list of ECO codes would be appropriate, but only if we improve the list to be complete and useful. In its current state it's a stub and does not deserve to be kept. It would be embarrassing if the list were kept and we left it in its current skeletal state. Quale (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quale: I stopped working on the article as soon as it was nominated for deletion. Checking each code in the original encyclopedia is time-consuming, and I don't want to do it if the article is just going to be deleted. If you think the article should be kept, please consider voting in the AfD. :) Khiikiat (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public watchlist catchup to new pages

[edit]

I wrote about the public watchlist in June (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_40#Mechanical_maintenance_of_the_public_watchlist). It didn't attract any comment, probably because my post was tl;dr.

I've been tracking articles in the 1,075 chess categories rooted under Category:chess. Our venerable public watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles has fallen 206 articles behind since I last did maintenance on it. As I described in my June post I don't have the stamina or interest to maintain the complex section division and sorting of the current watchlist, but I'm not sure how people use it so I am loathe to replace it with a more easily maintainable page like the one I use at User:Quale/publicwatchlist. Instead I dumped links to the 206 new pages into a new "Unsorted" section. Feel free to move the links to the appropriate places in the watchlist or revert my edit and remove the unsorted section. I don't use the project public watchlist but I want it to be useful for those who do. (I didn't remove any deleted pages, renamed pages, or pages that are redirects from the project public watchlist. Even though I have a program that will find stuff that should be removed, I would have to do the edits by hand and I'm not interested in working that hard on it.) Quale (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed for deletion

[edit]

House of Staunton has been proposed for deletion, on November 14, 2025. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I disagree, it does kind of look like an ad. There are plenty of companies that make chess sets, what makes this one special? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Chess Team. Please join.

[edit]

To all Chess players: There is a Wikiversity Chess Team. Free for all to join. Look at : Wikiversity Team Lichess.org.. See you over the board :) Harold Foppele (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers for anon editors

[edit]

Sometimes it seems to me that anon editors cause more trouble than they're worth. But then we get gems such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Threefold_repetition&curid=557112&diff=1321755535&oldid=1308248127. Wikimedia doesn't allow sending thanks directly to anon or logged out editors, but thank you to whoever added that nice example to Threefold repetition. Quale (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimzowitsch "Urtext"

[edit]

You can find the original German text of "My System", "Chess Praxis", "The Blockade" and other Nimzowitsch writings at this site. Not sure about copyright status or whether it is usable on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I join this wiki project?

[edit]

I've been recently curious about joining the wiki project but I don't know how to join any help would be appreciated. Spectralarrow (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I started editing on Wikipedia, I didn't follow any formal procedure for "joining" the project. I just started editing chess-related articles, and also, started paying attention to this talk page, as you have done. By and by, I added my name to the list of participants in WP:CHESS, but I don't think anyone pays much attention to that. There are other good things to do, such as building a "watch list" -- see Help:Watchlist. But my own perspective is probably very limited, even after almost ten years. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As Bruce says, there aren't any formal requirements to join WP:CHESS. You can add your name to WP:Chess#Participants, but that's entirely optional. Depending on your interests and what kind of editing you like to do, you can contribute to discussions on this talk page or talk pages for any chess article, find a chess page to improve (you will find them all under Category:Chess) by adding content, correcting mistakes, or Wikignoming to improve compliance with WP:MOS manual of style. As Bruce suggests you can also watch recent changes to chess pages to patrol for vandalism or unhelpful edits, or to find pages that other chess editors are working on and collaborate on those articles or talk pages. If you find a chess topic that should have a page but doesn't yet, you can create a new chess article. Since the project is over 20 years old most general chess subjects already have pages, so most new pages are biographies. (But despite the fact that the chess project is old, many of the chess pages aren't very good and could be greatly improved. There's plenty of work available.) There are a lot of WP:STUB chess bios (Category:Chess people) that could be expanded. Some editors enjoy trying to find images to add to chess pages, especially bios. I don't have experience in that area, but great care is required that the images have a free license. You might learn more at WP:UPIMAGE.
If you want to watch nearly all changes to chess articles, the project has a public watchlist at Index of chess articles: Related changes. It is indifferently maintained. I have a more up to date list at Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Quale/publicwatchlist. (I recently replaced my workstation and haven't updated my public watchlist in a few days, but I expect to get back to it soon.) Quale (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Player countries

[edit]

@Khiikiat With respect to this edit:

You're conflating representing a federation with playing under the FIDE flag due to the Russian flag being banned. For example, Ian Nepomniachtchi still represents Russia (you recently made an erroneous edit to his article claiming he represents FIDE since 2022), while Peter Svidler represents FIDE. You can see this clearly on the FIDE rating list, where the players representing Russia have the Russian flag. I noticed that you also made similar erroneous edits to other articles like Denis Lazavik.

Only the display of the flags of Russia and Belarus in tournaments is banned; that doesn't mean their national federations are suspended and their players represent FIDE. They still represent their national federation as per their FIDE profile, unless they transferred. 9ninety (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edits are erroneous. I think |country= is for the flag under which the player plays. (See Template talk:Infobox chess biography/Archive 1#Does "country" refer to federation, citizenship or residence?) Esipenko's federation is the Chess Federation of Russia, but he does not represent Russia. He represents FIDE. This was clearly stated at the closing ceremony of the World Cup. See this video. Khiikiat (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is peculiar, however, that the FIDE website uses Russian flags next to Russian players. That was not the case a year ago, as 9ninty linked above. It seems that their website is acknowledging the Russians country, which means we are actually deviating from the primary source's usage for the "Country" entry in the infobox. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me, there is nothing peculiar. The Russian flag appears on Esipenko's profile because his federation is the Chess Federation of Russia, and the FIDE flag appears on Svidler's profile because his federation is FIDE. However, both players play under the FIDE flag, and both players represent FIDE. Khiikiat (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What appears in the infobox must represent what appears in the article. If the article states that the subject plays for Russia or is Russian, the infobox must say that too. Conversely if the infobox says that his country is FIDE, the article must agree with that (and explain it). Bruce leverett (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be assumed that readers know what it means that someone "plays for FIDE" or "represents FIDE". Readers of our articles should be assumed to know almost nothing about chess. FIDE is not a country. If we note that someone plays for FIDE or under the FIDE flag, we are obliged to explain that or to link to an explanation of it. This is true, not only for our player biographies, but also for other articles about tournaments or other current events in chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recall it always being the case; for example, in October 2022. The flag is only banned in events. 9ninety (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Khiikiat, changing Andrey Esipenko's federation to FIDE is beyond stupid. His federation is clearly Russia as can be seen on his FIDE profile WikiProject Chess rating card at FIDE. There are players with registered federation FIDE, but Esipenko is not one of them. Quale (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An apology, Esipenko is a player who FIDE had listed with country 'FIDE' in rating lists from March 2022 through March 2025 and it might have been warranted to use FIDE as his country in his bio infobox for those 37 months. Since April 2025 FIDE records have said Russia and now there's no question that 'Russia' is appropriate in his infobox. Someone who knew that Esipenko had been listed as FIDE could have been unaware that FIDE had made a change earlier this year. Quale (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quale: I don't think my edit is beyond stupid. Esipenko does not play under the Russian flag. Bruce leverett wrote here: I don't know if we have this written down anywhere, so I'm not being authoritative, but I think "country" refers to the flag the person is playing under. In the past, the flag and the federation have usually been the same. But, since 2022, it has been possible for them to be different. If |country= is for the federation (not the flag), then the label ought to be changed to Federation. Khiikiat (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article about Esipenko does not mention, outside the infobox, that he is playing under the FIDE flag. For a reader who is not familiar with FIDE’s wrestling with the problems caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the specification of FIDE as his country in the infobox is an unsolvable mystery. Are you going to add something to the article text to help with this? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruce leverett: I don't agree that it was an unsolvable mystery. As you can see from this edit, I added an explanatory footnote. However, the footnote has been removed by 9ninety and Quale. I agree that it would be helpful to add something to article text, but I think the key issue is whether |country= refers to the flag or the federation. I have started an RfC about this. The RfC can be found here: Template talk:Infobox chess biography#RfC: Country. Khiikiat (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncool. RFCs are intended to be used after conversations at places like talk pages have proven unfruitful. Volunteer time is limited, and calling in the larger community to invest their time in such things should be used sparingly. This conversation is only three days old and still seems constructive. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Esipenko isn't really a good example for that argument since it is absolutely clear that today his infobox must say Russia. There are 35 GMs whose FIDE profiles indicate federation FIDE including
I'm not certain what should be in their infoboxes. Possibly "Russia (FIDE flag player)" or "FIDE flag player (Russia)". Quale (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Svidler's infobox should simply say [[FIDE flag player|FIDE]] because his federation is FIDE, he plays under the FIDE flag, and he officially represents FIDE. The question, for me, is what to do about people like Esipenko, whose federation is the CFR, but who play under the FIDE flag and officially represent FIDE. That is why I started the RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that the infobox often includes all the player federation affiliations with the effective years. So Svidler could have two lines similar to Russia (through 2022); FIDE (since 2022). The case of Esipenko is simple, his country is Russia. I've said this over and over and it hasn't changed. Esipenko doesn't officially represent FIDE. If he did, his federation would be FIDE like Svidler. Esipenko doesn't use the FIDE flag because he's representing FIDE, he uses the FIDE flag because FIDE doesn't allow use of the flags of Russia or Belarus. Quale (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at the RfC. Khiikiat (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox chess biography has an RfC

[edit]
icon

Template:Infobox chess biography has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Khiikiat (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harm Geert Muller

[edit]

There is a new page Harm Geert Muller which calls him a physicist but 99.99% of the page is about his chess program. There is insufficient information on the page to verify notability as a physicist, and I don't know what the concensus is for chess notability. If someone has WP:NPP right please review it, otherwise please provide enough here for me to do it. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any special criteria for judging notability of chess programmers (and programs). You can look at WP:NCHESS, but it is for chess players, not for chess programmers.
I agree with your assessment that there is not sufficient evidence of notability. The text of the page is largely copied from the chess programming wiki entry for Muller. The chess programming wiki is not a reliable source. Neither in the Wikipedia article, nor in the chess programming wiki entry, did I see any citations of reliable sources about his chess or shogi programming. I see that you have added a Notability tag to the Wikipedia article. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New category

[edit]

A recent edit by someone else has inspired me to think about creating a new category, "Rules of chess", which would include Castling, En passant, Threefold repetition, Promotion (chess), Checkmate, and (not least) Rules of chess. Will work on this soon. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been anticipated. I don't know why I missed this. Category:Rules of chess exists, and the article Rules of chess is already in it. Sorry for the false alarm. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Budapest Gambit

[edit]

Budapest Gambit has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The core of the article was created in 2009 by a couple of very motivated editors who we don't see around much anymore. To be honest I don't really care if it loses GA status and I'm not going to make a flurry of edits to preserve it. I've seen what happened to the chess article when we tried to do this, and it wasn't pretty. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article about chess player

[edit]

Hi, I created a draft and submitted that to Afc about Sarwagya Singh Kushwaha. I tried my best to expand this but my inner soul felt this could get rejected. Can someone help me expand this as this is about youngest FIDE rated chess player. Thanks––KEmel49(📝,📋) 19:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of ECO codes

[edit]

Harlequin69 is making some valid points. There is a case for "list of chess openings" and "list of ECO codes" co-existing, but I hated how the the chess.com "every opening has to have a name" crowd took it over. How should we proceed? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Change the name to "List of Named Chess Openings". Then we can at least require reliable sources for opening names. Not chess.com or chess365 or whatever. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — I think this is a constructive direction.
Requiring reliable, non–site-specific sources for opening names is entirely reasonable, and I fully support excluding meme-based or purely internet-origin labels.
One small concern with the proposed title “List of Named Chess Openings” is that it may unintentionally narrow the scope toward nomenclature rather than conceptual structure. Many historically established opening families (e.g. Open Games, Semi-Open Games, Indian Defences, Gambit families) are meaningful precisely because of their ideas and structures, not just because of a single canonical name.
Perhaps a way forward could be:
  • A curated, concept-oriented page (whether titled List of chess openings or similar) that:
    • organizes openings by families and ideas,
    • includes only historically established and reliably sourced names,
    • explicitly excludes informal or meme-based labels;
  • alongside List of ECO codes as the technical classification index.
This would address the “everything needs a name” concern while preserving a human-oriented overview that helps readers understand how openings relate to one another.
I’d be happy to help outline sourcing criteria or a basic structure if that would be useful. Harlequin69 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first issue is sourcing. Have you found sources from which to get your organization? We shouldn't just make stuff up.
I'm worried that you are going in the direction of Pawn structure, which classifies openings in a plausible way, but is entirely unsourced, and so is not sufficiently credible. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — that’s a fair concern, and I agree entirely that we should avoid any original or unsourced classification.
To clarify, I’m not proposing a novel organizational scheme (such as pawn-structure–based taxonomies), nor anything derived from personal synthesis. The intent is to rely on long-established opening families as they are already presented in authoritative chess literature.
For example, classifications such as:
  • Open Games
  • Semi-Open Games
  • Closed Games
  • Indian Defences
  • Flank Openings
  • Gambit families
are not modern inventions, but appear consistently in classic and mainstream sources, including:
  • the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings itself (in its volume structure and introductory material),
  • standard opening manuals (e.g. Nunn, Fine, Pachman, modern repertoire books),
  • and long-standing chess encyclopedias and reference works.
In other words, the proposed structure would be derived directly from published sources, not synthesized independently. The page would essentially summarize how reputable sources already group openings, with citations at the family level.
If it would help, the next concrete step could be to:
  • list specific sources that define these families explicitly, and
  • draft a minimal outline where each family heading is backed by at least one reliable reference.
I’m very open to keeping the scope conservative and source-driven — the goal is accessibility, not reinterpretation. Harlequin69 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ECO generally avoids using opening names, which often vary between countries. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree — and that’s precisely why List of ECO codes is so valuable as a technical reference.
My suggestion isn’t to replace or reinterpret the ECO system in any way, but to acknowledge that it deliberately optimizes for standardization rather than reader orientation. Avoiding opening names solves one problem (ambiguity across languages), but it also means ECO is not designed to serve as a conceptual overview.
That’s the gap I’m hoping to address: a separate, source-driven overview that reflects how authoritative literature discusses opening families and ideas, while leaving List of ECO codes to do what it already does very well.
In short: ECO for classification; a curated list for comprehension — coexisting, not competing. Harlequin69 (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the concern is that if we recreate the article it will end up like this, full of unsourced names for openings which hardly anyone plays and which you won't find in any standard reference. The article was truly a magnet for low quality edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we already have an excellent list in Opening (chess)#Classification of chess openings. Why not copy-paste this list?--Cbigorgne (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess&oldid=1327831044"