Talk:Giuoco Piano

There is an "extra" black knight on square f6 in the picture. Somebody should fix that. - Bryan is Bantman 23:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, figured it out and fixed it myself. :) - Bryan is Bantman 23:12, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

While correcting a misspelling elsewhere I noticed that Guioco Piano redirects to this page, making it more likely that that misspelling will be used elswhere. I'm not sure what the best way to handle common misspellings is, but an automatic redirect doesn't seem optimal. If the mistake is common enough to need treatment, it should probably get a little page explaining that it is a misspelling, with the link given there, no? (Total neophyte here.) post added 09:31, 12 May 2005 from 82.228.195.112 (Talk)

I don't know how common that misspelling is, but it's clear that I'm doing it all the time. Thanks for pointing this out. I'm fixing the mistakes I made in Bishop's Opening, Hungarian Defense, and Ponziani Opening. I made the mistake multiple times in the Bishop's Opening article alone. Quale 15:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but I'm not sure which is corect spelling now. The books I've looked at all say "Giuoco Piano", not "Guioco..."; is this an another example of anglo-saxons messing up other peoples languages? And how do you say it? (I'd say "Jzeeohkoh", but thats just me). Moonraker12 11:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronounce "joke-oh". The i is there to give the g a soft pronunciation, and is not pronounced separately. Kind of the converse to how English uses u to give g a hard pronunciation in words like "guest". 91.107.148.132 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In Italian, it's pronounced more like English "JAW-co". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.219.179 (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Guioco" is clearly an error. However, there is a valid spelling variation: Gioco Piano (without the "u"), which is how the name of the opening is spelled in modern standard Italian. However, for some reason, the spelling "giuoco" is overwhelmingly more common in English-language chess literature -- perhaps because the name was imported into English so long ago. - furrykef (Talk at me) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Jerome gambit? Seriously? You might as well list all legal moves for White if you are listing this one. I'd recommend it be removed as you'll never see this played by anyone over 1600 FIDE in a tournament game. Your avegare club player would beat a GM who tried this opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.126.147 (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the text here to make it easier to follow. There's probably a better way to do it, but hopefully this'll do for now. I've not checked the play; it isn't a line in the books I've seen (though they're pretty old books). 194.176.105.40 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone ever mention the line e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3 Qf6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's an obscure variation. We are not into that level or detail here. 4...Qf6 is played less then 1% of the time in that position. And while Yusapov(?) may of played that move once I can't see any reason to cover 4...Qf6, when 4....Nf6,4...Qe7,4...d6 and 4...Bb6 and all far more common. ChessCreator (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then why don't we mention why it's played so infrequently? It's an obvious move without an obvious drawback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same position? It blocks in the Knight, gives up the possibility of d5, puts the queen on a square where it will likely be attacked by Bg5. According to chessgames.com it's the worse scoring move that's been played more then once in that position. ChessCreator (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also prevents d4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The page "Italian Game" redirects here; it looks like it was merged in May this year. The books I’ve read make a distinction between the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano; the Italian Game is all play after 3.Bc4, so includes Two knights Defence (3…Nf6) and the Hungarian Defence (3…Be7) while the Giuoco Piano is just the play after 3…Bc5. This also agrees with the wikibook pages on chess openings. In any event the Giuoco Piano page only discusses play after 3…Bc5, so I was intending to open up the Italian Game page again.Does anyone have any strong objection to this? Moonraker12 12:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Italian Game and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 5#A couple of things. 64.231.242.114 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK I’ve read the discussion on the link, but I can’t say I’m any closer to an answer to my question.

I accept that the terms Italian Game and Giuoco Piano are often used as synonyms (though different books have it different ways round; is it Italian Game (Giuoco Piano) or G.P (Italian)?) But there’s no consensus, that I can see. Other books do make the distinction, with Italian covering everything after 3.Bc4, and G.P just the play after 3…Bc5 (I’m referring, from memory, to The Italian Game by Harding & Botterill, and Batsford Chess Openings).

And, (second point) one of those sources is WP itself, on the chess pages (Chess openings, Open games) and in Wikibooks (I’ve been doing a bit of work there, but the pages were there already)

The problem (third point) is that if G.P is to be the only page for this, then it is deficient/incomplete as it only contains play after 3…Bc5, and there are no easy links to the Hungarian Defence or the 2 Knights.

The most elegant solution, to my mind, is to have a page like Open games for the Italian Game /3.Bc4, with a diagram, thumbnail sketch and link for each of the main branches. The alternative seems to be to change everything else to fit.

So again, does anyone have any strong objections to me doing that? Moonraker12 13:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Several months ago I tried to clarify whether the Italian Game is the GP, or everything after 3. Bc4, and I was not able to get a definitive answer. I hope you can clear it up. Bubba73 (talk), 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No objections at all here - go for it, and I'll help where I can. ELIMINATORJR 17:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Guioco Piano by Gufeld and Stesko says that the GP "is a branch of the Italian Game". In contrast, Italian Game and Evans Gambit by Pinski only gives GP, Evans Gambit, and a short chapter on the "Hungarian and other sidelines". Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at the old discussion linked above, five of the six references I checked equated Italian with GP, only one included other third moves by Black. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I also now have another reference - Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess. It equates the GP and Italian, so my books are six to one in favor of GP (including Evans gambit) = Italian. Bubba73 (talk), 21:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a go at it over the next few days. Do you know, is there any way of looking at the old page? I don't know if it still exists somewhere. Moonraker12 07:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Game&action=history. If you simply try to go to Italian Game, you'll be redirected to the G.P. page. You can get to the redirect page itself by clicking on the Italian Game link at the top of the page in the message that tells you you've been redirected. Quale 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; it looks like this isn't the first time this line's been followed. Moonraker12 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, done; I've left some further comments on the name thing there. Moonraker12 12:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Giuoco Piano?, no it's Gioco Piano, Giuoco means nothing. --84.42.196.104 (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I always thought, and my Collins Gem confirms the word is "Gioco" meaning game. Also, Italian Wikipedia describes the opening as Gioco Piano, see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partita_di_gioco_piano. However, most of the chess references I can find list it as "Guioco Piano". Can someone explain? 82.1.57.47 (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No explanation but an observation that the 'Giuoco Piano' spelling is widespread in other wiki languages. SunCreator (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, after some research, I can answer my own question. Back in the 17th century, the Italian word for game was "giuoco", but since then it has elided into "gioco". Hence, Italian speakers call the chess opening Gioco Piano, while the rest of the world use the name Giuoco Piano, because that's what it was called when the opening was first explored. Incidentally, it was/is pronounced "ju-ocko"/"jocko" depending on which century you prefer, but definitely NOT "gee-oh-ko". 82.1.57.47 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also "Guioco". ("In this book the spelling Giuoco (in Giuoco Piano) has been used, but Guioco and Gioco are also seen." Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian Game. B.T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6. Bibliography/Authors Note) --IHTS (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I always thought "guioco" was just an error, the "gi" combination represents the "j" sound in Italian so that would make it "gwee-oko" instead of "joko". But then I see even the scholarly Staunton spelled it "guioco". Don't know if any Italian would spell it that way. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The diagram over "Main line (Greco Attack) Position after 7...Nxe4" looks very wrong to me. If this is a diagram of what I think it is, there should not be a black pawn at e5, and there should be a white one at d4. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong position, but in that case the article seems very misleading. Could someone fix this? 24.226.77.23 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Bubba73 (talk), 17:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The article states that 9...Ne5 is interesting, and then gives the line 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 f5 12.Qxc4 d6 as a response. While this is probably correct play for black, it seems to me that 11...Ncd6 is more likely, leading to 12. Qxg7 Qf6 13. Qxf6 Nxf6 14. Re1+ Nfe4 15. Nd2 f5 16. f3 O-O 17. fxe4 Re8 with good play for white. Is this worth mentioning? John Nowak (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the italian word "piano" ment more something like calm !? 83.249.44.130 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is, Guioco Piano means "quiet game". The 4.d3 lines are quiet, but the others can be pretty wild. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It is true that "quiet" is not an exact equivalent of the Italian word "piano", which is related to the word "plane" and usually means something like "flat, smooth, level", but in this context the traditional English translation used in reliable sources is "quiet game" so this is what we should be using on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the correct translation is "plain", which is to say "simple". "Quiet game" is a mis-translation, popularized by English chess books from authors that didn't know Italian.

These passed into the internet, mostly through Wikipedia probably, spreading the confusion. You should correct this. 2600:1007:A000:A582:BD5E:7F53:9234:2B78 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My proposed correction "plain game" was removed. The previous comment (from 2018) talks about reliable sources: I'm not sure what a reliable source is in this context: a very reliable source in chess may well be not-so-reliable in translation. And in fact, "quiet game" simply doesn't convey the meaning of the term, even if it's proposed by dozens of english books (which, crucually, are not italian books). Specifically: "piano" is either an adverb or an adjective. When it's an adverb, it means "quietly" (not "quiet"), "slowly", "gently" etc. When it's an adjective it means "flat" or "simple", "easy", "plain", but never means "quiet". I know that the classical music terminology tradition adds to the confusion, but again, as an adjective, "piano" doesn't mean "quiet". Now: in "Giuoco piano", "piano" is an adjective and not an adverb (the opposite would be funny, to italian speakers (like myself)), and its meaning is not "quiet". Lastly: the adjective "piano" also means "regular", "normal" as opposed to any kind of variant or complication, which is exactly the meaning the current footnote n.1 points to (no gambits).--Giulio.t (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The origin of the opening itself, as well as the origin of its name, are from about the beginning of the 16th century. Can anyone determine what the meaning of "giuoco piano" was at that time? I know that the meanings of words shift over the course of hundreds of years.

Wikipedia is not an independent authority. We are obliged to follow the usage of existing authorities, and especially English-language authorities, in the naming of the openings. See WP:OR and WP:RS. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you do give a translation, alongside the official name, it's a matter of linguistics, not of chess. If the wikipedia principle is to stick to authorities, fine, but you need to choose the right ones. English-language chess authorities are not italian language aurhorities (and I'd argue they probably have little-to-no expertise in the field) so by the same principle their translation doesn't deserve to be spread worldwide by wikipedia. Why not remove it?

As for the meaning shift: yes, someone can determine what "piano" used to mean in the 16th century. Giulio.t (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For jargon use of "piano" in that era, you can look to music. For an English translation of "piano", look at Dynamics (music)#Dynamic markings or consider fortepiano. Quale (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems likely that the translation traditionally given in English chess literature ("quiet game") is inaccurate and something like "plain game" (i.e. a non-gambit) would be more accurate. Yes "piano" translates as "quiet" in the context of music, but maybe this isn't the correct translation in the context of chess. Nevertheless "quiet game" is what the English language sources say. If we can find a source discussing the original Italian meaning we can cite this, writing something like "while traditionally translated as 'quiet game' in English, the original means was....<ref>....</ref>". Until then we're stuck with "quiet game", which is what the English language RS's say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you can't. First: jargon is field-specific, by definition. Second: on a music page, "piano" means "play quietly". It's an adverb. In "Giuoco piano", it's of course an adjective, and that has a different meaning. Giulio.t (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a good solution that acknowledges the original meaning of the Italian phrase. I've found The Oxford English Dictionary, which gives the literal translation as "plain game" and cites Sarratt (1813) at the internet archive. This is the Sarratt citation. Among the 18th century Italian players who used the term "Giuoco Piano" are Salvio, Lolli and Ponziani, all of which can be found at google books or internet archive. Salvio may well have been the originator of the term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, in this context "piano" means "plain", not "quiet". "Piano" only means "quiet(ly)" as an adverb, not as an adjective. You should really fix it, Wikipedia should not contribute to propagate errors. It's not even a traditional translation or anything like that., just an error made in some English language chess books that happened to be the ones you consulted. 2600:1007:A024:F16B:DD:4707:CCD5:C37 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above by User:Quale, "piano" means "quiet" as an adjective in music; see Dynamics (music)#Dynamic markings. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, there is no special italiano for music. Secondly, no it does not. It means "quietly", as an adverb, because the various "piano" "forte" etc. are commands addressed to the conductor, or the player. So "piano" means "play [this part] quietly".

Fix this thing, everyone playing chess and speaking English keeps repeating this error, likely based on this wikipedia page, itself based on a random book whose author just didn't bother learning Italian properly. 2600:1007:A001:67C2:CD40:AD55:975C:A8C5 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In Italian, 'giuoco' would be pronounced as [dʒuoko] (juoko) (as noted above, the modern word for 'play' is gioco instead of giuoco). This article says that it would be pronunciated as 'choko'. Is this an error, or is this the way this loan-word is actually pronounced in English? (I assume 'piano' is pronounced like the name of the music instrument and not like the original Italian word.) Anyway, 'choko' now links to the IPA symbols but does not use them. In IPA, that would be [tʃoko]. Bever (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation element was introduced by this post. I think it would be an improvement if you boldly change it to what you think is right (or to even what you think is "best guess" what is right!). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not the whole truth that "giuoco" is pronounced [dʒuoko] in Italian. Italians spelled it "guioco" and pronounced it [dʒoko] for a very long time before they adopted the modern spelling, and the old spelling remained an acceptable alternative until well into the 20th century. In terms of how should you pronounce it in English as the name of a chess opening, which is the question for this article, well I think the article should offer both alternatives. In practice [dʒoko] is common, and the users of it can point to modern Italian to justify it as no kind of mistake. The difficulty is citing an authoritative source, and unfortunately chess authors tend to lack strength in linguistics. Choko or [tʃoko], on the other hand, is a mistake.

Doubtless many people do pronounce "piano" like the name of the the musical instrument, but that is also a mistake. Ivan Viehoff (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The comments on this section are suddenly looking dated. It seems like I am seeing this line in all the super-GM tournaments, usually with the move order 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3. Not sure where to start in updating it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 is arguably the main line these days, but it can also be reached by 4.d3 Nf6 5.c3. The pianissimo proper is 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 I think. The other fork is whether white plays b4 and chases the bishop or just plays Bb3-c2 Ruy Lopez style, which seems to be the modern GM practice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway the reason I had a section for 5.d4 is that I was planning to create a corresponding section for 5.d3. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense but it said 4.d4 and was in the wrong place, wrong level of heading, etc. Sometimes nothing goes right. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

From the lead: The name "Italian Game" is used by some authors (Pinski 2005:5); however, that name is also used to describe all openings starting 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, including 3...Nf6 (the Two Knights Defence) and other less common replies. That is absolutely true. But so far this text has been stated in the context of an explanatory or informational aside rather than as an alternate id name for the topic. If we want to do the latter, then we'll need to make in bold (Italian Game) rather than the current quotes ("Italian Game") and add as synonym in the Infobox. But see p.p.s. below. --IHTS (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

p.s. In addition to Pinski as above, Harding & Botterill's book The Italian Game does the same (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4; covering Giuoco Piano, Evans Gambit, Two Knights Defence, Hungarian Defence). Meanwhile, Hopper & Whyld have no entry for Italian Game. --IHTS (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

p.p.s. And there is already article Italian Game. --IHTS (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think Hooper & Whyld are in the minority here. Do we have any other references for "Italian Opening"? I don't think I've seen that name used anywhere else. It's interesting that Hooper & Whylde do not give a name to the position after 3.Bc4. This is probably an accurate reflection of the common terminology in 1984 when the fist edition was published.

There are already two references in the article for the name "Italian Game":

• Harding, Tim; Botterill, G. S. (1977). The Italian Game. B. T. Batsford Ltd. ISBN 0-7134-3261-6.
• Pinski, Jan (2005), Italian Game and Evans Gambit, Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-373-8

and in my library there are also

• Brace, Edward R. (1977), An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess, Hamlyn Publishing Group, p. 144, ISBN 1-55521-394-4, Italian Game, another name for Giuoco Piano
• Golombek, Harry, ed. (1977), "Giuoco Piano", Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, Crown Publishing, ISBN 0-517-53146-1, the Guioco Piano (also known as the Italian Game) | pages=129}}
• Horton, Byrne J. (1959), Dictionary of modern chess, New York: Philosophical Library, p. 94, OCLC 606992, Italian Game, see Giuoco Piano
• De Firmian, Nick (1999), Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14, Random House Puzzles & Games, p. 18, ISBN 0-8129-3084-3, The Giuoco Piano (known outside the English-speaking world as the "Italian Game")
• Watson, John (2006), Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 1, Gambit, p. 91, ISBN 978-1-904600-60-2, I'll use the generally accepted name 'Giuoco Piano' for 3...Bc5; it is also called 'the Italian Game'
• Van der Sterren, Paul (2009), Fundamental Chess Openings, Gambit, p. 301, ISBN 978-1-906454-13-5, I follow the modern trend of lumping them [i.e. Giuoco Piano and Two Knights Defence] together and calling 3 Bc4 the Italian Game
• Karpov, Anatoly (1988), The Open Game in Action, Batsford, p. 101, 3...Bc5 If Black plays this move the opening is usually called the Italian Game
• Bronstein, David (1973), 200 Open Games, Dover, p. 67, ISBN 0-486-26857-8, The Italian Game (Giuoco Piano)

Quale (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I w/ agree w/ all of that. (Even my Harding & Botterill book, p. 1, first para, states after 3...Bc5: "Thus begins the Italian Game, or Giuoco Piano, proper.") The problem here is, as mentioned, we already have article Italian Game, and since OCC H&W has heretofore generally been considered a "Bible" re authority/RS by WP:CHESS, it was a handy and justifiable way to differentiate. So with that gone, how do you propose to differentiate (naming Giuoco Piano also Italian Game, when 3.Bc4 is presumably properly already identified as Italian Game), to avoid general readership confusion? (E.g. the current Italian Game article has this hatnote: "For the Italian Opening, see Giuoco Piano." My presumption is when a name is presented in bold in article lead, it implies an alternative article id suitable for a REDIRECT.) Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs a hatnote. A hat would be appropriate if Italian Game was a redirect to this article, but it isn't. The two usages of "Italian Game" are explained adequately both in this article and at Italian Game. Quale (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Right. Agree w/ the current two article statuses. --IHTS (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. The more I think about it, the name Giuoco Piano is pretty bad honestly, as it's just the Giuoco Pianissimo or transpositions to it (or symmetrical Italian Four Knights) that are particularly "quiet" I think. It occurs to me that it possibly has to do with anti-Prussian sentiment? Cause if this was the Italian and the Two Knights were the Prussian, the names would work out much more nicely. But maybe the Prussian name had never taken off. Dayshade (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't like attaching this name to what is essentially a classical Giuoco Piano, and it's not a name I've ever heard applied to it. According to Hooper & Whyld (my go-to on what and are not "legitimate" opeening names), the Greco Gambit is 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.f4. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm fine with attaching "Classical Variation" or something instead (and having the GG name be just a note in the prose), or if you really want then just nothing I guess, but I'd prefer at least some label ideally. But it does appear in multiple sources and lichess uses it for the line. Dayshade (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

What sources? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Open Gambits. Also, please stop not giving your thoughts on my comment at the end of the previous section. Also, take a look at the new Two Knights revision. Dayshade (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

By "Open Gambits" do you mean the 1986 book by Botterill?

I looked up openings named for Greco in Hooper & Whyld, and "Greco Variation" is their number 915, a subvariation, generally considered worse for Black. Since Hooper & Whyld is from 1996, it appears that Botterill's usage did not catch on. Of course, I do not want to rely on Hooper & Whyld, and I like names that are old, but I would want to cite something more recent than Botterill 1986, especially something still in print. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's better off being used for 7.Nc3 after further review. I have seen Greco Gambit used online in some not-terrible sources, but still those are prob not qualifying as RS. Classical Variation works fine. Any thoughts on anything else recently? Dayshade (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you wanna do Classical Variation as the label instead for the 5.d4 line? Dayshade (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: in addition to the other questions, and if you're only going to answer one then this one is less important - do you object to Greco Gambit/Attack as a label for 7.Nc3, 6.cxd4, both, or neither? Dayshade (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm just not so into giving names to everything unless they are in common use. If someone told me he played the "Greco Gambit" I wouldn't know what he was talking about. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Can you respond to the rest of the questions? Dayshade (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, how does mentioning it in the prose sound? Maybe something like "Both 5.d4 and 7.Nc3 have been referred to as the Greco Gambit, but there is no consensus name for this line"? [I think even 6.cxd4 has been used as the boundary? Feel like I've heard someone call 7.Bd2 the modern greco gambit] @Bruce leverett: curious if you'd accept or reject such a sentence? Dayshade (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why the urge to put a label on it? Chess literature did without labels or names for standard Italian lines for 500 years. Why can't we? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I just think they're neat. Dayshade (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

But seriously, in this case there actually are sources using the term (and I have heard it in real life), although they don't agree on the boundary (move 5, 6, or 7). Dayshade (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, why not just note in the prose the possible (sourced) name? I think that'd be a fair compromise. There's also an aspect of consistency with the other subheaders that motivates my desire, I think. Dayshade (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that multiple sources can't agree on exactly what is the Greco gambit should keep us from even touching that term. We are not the arbiter of chess opening names; we are the recorder of widely agreed-upon opening names. That's what it means to be an encyclopedia. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 - Agree Quale (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I should have phrased that better. Putting it in the prose would note that there isn't agreement, like in the example sentence I gave above. The sources do agree that some sort of Greco Gambit is a valid term, just not quite where it begins. But, I don't mind leaving it out of the prose as well if you and Quale are both sure it's better off without. Dayshade (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, this doesn't apply to whether "Gambit line" (I'm also fine with "Pawn sacrifice line" or something, as you recommend, or again nothing if you really think so) is appropriate to be included before the moves in the header with "6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3", which Max also opposes for an unclear reason (perhaps that it originated with me...). Dayshade (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

To give moves in full, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Bxc3 9.d5 Ne5. Now after 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 the natural attempt to hold on to the piece with 11...Ncd6 has traditionally been regarded as an error, due to 12.Qxg7 Qf6 13.Qxf6 Nxf6 14.Re1+ Nfe4 (only move) 15.Nd2 f5 16.f3 which is assessed as +- (clear advantage to White) by Harding, quoting "ancient analysis" (Greco?). However material is considerably reduced and the engines think it's only about equal. Are there some more recent publications that confirm this assessment? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way both Pinski and the most recent Harding kibitzer column at chesscafe insist that White is better in this line, which is probably true from a human perspective, but technically it's a drawn position. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My understanding was that Greco was not aware of 9.d5. I'm seeing 11...0-0 and 11...f5 as notable more-played alternatives. 11.Ndc6's line seems to end with the Black king more exposed, which might be why it's given as White advantage? Dayshade (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Notability is based on appearances in reliable sources, not appearances in online databases, and 11...Ncd6 appears in many reliable sources. Unfortunately the engine disagrees with their assessment, it seems to be playable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct about notability, but agree to disagree I guess. And I'm just speculating about maybe why the ancient analysis thought so. I'd say let's trim this point in the article. Dayshade (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No "agreeing to disagree", that's what notability means in the Wikipedia context, and the sooner you understand that the better. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Compare: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giuoco_Piano&oldid=1313803778. It was stable and was being incrementally improved, as is best practice in chess articles. Since then some sourced information (like the origin of the Moller Attack) has been removed for no good reason, and the tedious and repetitive "White usually plays..." "Black usually plays..." "most common is..." "... is also played" has infested the article. Sorry but this style of writing about chess openings just sucks, and it screams "I'm doing Original Research with an online database." It's not how books about chess openings are written, and it's not how we should write about chess openings. We're not here to be a database dump, we're here to reflect what has been written in reliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The repetitive language is tedious and we should correct that. I also agree about your other points about how our chess opening articles should be written. There are other problems with recent changes. The section on 6.b4 calls it the Dubov V., but I don't know the source supporting that name. It takes a line to 23 moves which is at least 10 moves too long. Only in very rare cases should a Wikipedia chess opening article go past the first 10 or 12 moves. Quale (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree 10 to 12 moves is a good rule of thumb, although some extremely theoretical openings (e.g. semi-slav, classical nimzo, knight attack (two knights), marshall attack, najdorf, sveshnikov, etc) would go a bit further. The 23 moves thing was already there before I started editing this, and I'm happy to trim it down. The Dubov name can be seen being used by a GM here: , but yeah maybe not the Variation part. I've been realizing maybe a non-upper case can be used for a more generic title like "Dubov's line" or "Flank pawn thrust line", which might be nicer? I just think it's nice to have something besides the pgn alone in the title, cause people I show articles to always say they prefer more diagrams and less pgn. So even a not super-common name I think is not doing harm to have in a header. But if you want to make the call to be just pgn, just remove the words and I won't add them back. Dayshade (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

How can you say the old structure was better when it hyperfocuses on one game (ie, the info there is not notable enough) to the omission of so much info about other lines and sticks out as weirdly different in comparison to other articles and parts of the previous version of the article? What are some alternative phrasings besides "most often", "frequently", etc you want to see? Is it more about using a mix of those, or the whole idea of noting frequently played sidelines that a book did not mention or that the editor reading that book did not add info about, but which should appear in any recent book about an opening that isn't too focused on just being a repertoire? I'm just not convinced the style sucks. Dayshade (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many different ways you can think of to phrase "White usually..." "the usual move is..." "most common is...", "most often" etc etc, the problem remains - it amounts to a claim that is not supported by a source, and gives the strong impression of original research by "database dumping", a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Quite apart from that, it makes for incredibly tedious and repetitive reading. No books or opening monographs are written like that. We don't need to know every move that's in the database, we need to know which are the most important lines and what their assessment is. This information can only be found in reliable sources, not in databases. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Books seem to go game by game often, which doesn't seem appropriate to me either. I can try to find more book games referencing these lines (perhaps your time would be better spent doing this, also, since you seem to have more books than me), but I really think there's value (and allowed by WP:PRIMARY) to brief notes about common responses to any ignored sidelines, which become more and more common the lower your skill is, and I think most of our readers are below master level. Dayshade (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I'd still be curious for more guidelines on the least bad ways to phrase "White usually plays"/etc since those still would be an important part of the prose commentary even in a fully dumping-free version, for example when discussing a long main line, like the 7...Nxe4 8.0-0 bit. Dayshade (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Ye Gods, Max is right. Reading this section is torture that must surely be prohibited by the Geneva convention

• 4.0-0 Nf6 usually continues with 5.d3, transposing to the Giuoco Pianissimo; 5.d4, the Deutz Gambit; or 5.c3, the Albin Gambit.
• 4.0-0 d6 usually transposes to the Giuoco Pianissimo with 5.d3 (or 5.c3 Nf6 6.d3), or into a line of the Albin Gambit with 5.c3 Nf6 6.d4.
• 4.c3 d6 usually continues 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb6 (6...Bb4+ is playable but inferior), the La Bourdonnais Variation, a line that can also be reached from the Scotch Gambit via 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.c3 d6 6.cxd4 Bb6. In this line, Black yields the centre to White but has reasonably developed pieces.
• 4.c3 Bb6 usually transposes to the Closed Variation after 5.d4 Qe7 or the 4...d6 line after 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 d6.
• 4.d3 f5 is the not-so-quiet Lucchini Gambit; there can follow 5.Ng5 f4, the Dubois Variation.

Quale (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, original research with databases and engines is ok, original research with "unreliable sources" like blogs and youtube videos and chessgames.com and forum posts is ok. I do all these things myself, they can all help point me in the direction of reliable sources. I might even throw a few ideas out there on the talk pages (you're allowed to put your original research out there on talk pages and discuss potential RS's). But nothing gets into main space unless I can actually find a reliable source. If I wanted to make a statement that "White usually plays...." I'd need to find a reliable source that actually says "White usually plays....". But mostly readers don't care that much about move frequency, they want to know if it's any good or not. If all they care about is move frequency they can just look up a goddamn database. Move freuqency really isn't all that important compared to historical significance and current theoretical assessments, and it should not dominate the narrative of opening articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a good point that they can just look up a database themselves. In this case, 4.0-0 (e.g. you have to play this to reliably get the Deutz Gambit, which is a legit line I've seen recommended, or Max Lange Attack) and 4...d6 and 4...Bb6 are definitely legitimate but not particularly notable moves. I feel like Pinski had a couple games with 4.0-0 in the book and briefly mentioned other Black alternatives to 4...Qe7. Do you strongly prefer an inline? Dayshade (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it the repetitive usuallies more than anything than you dislike, or the entire idea of mentioning these sidelines? Dayshade (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not about me or what I like or dislike. It's about Wikipedia policy. Whatever you post, source it. If you can't source it, don't post it in article space. If you continue mutilating chess opening articles because you don't understand Wikipedia policy I might have to get the admins involved. I will not engage any further on this. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

If there's any chance you could engage just a little further, a lot of your complaints are not related to sourcing, and I still really want to hear more about non-sourcing styling that you do prefer. As for sourcing, how does what I've done for the Petrov look? Should I be taking your lack of further revisions as a begrudging approval? Dayshade (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone got any material on it? It seems to be good enough for a draw, making it technically "better" than the traditional 12.Bg5. It also has the advantage of not being analyzed to death. Karjakin just repeated moves with 12...Ng6 13.Re4+ Ne7 etc, rather than allow the Rxf6 sac, which would not be easy to deal with at the board without thorough preparation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's not in Pinski, who does mention 12.g4. Wonder what the best newer source is. Dayshade (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It might be in Pavlovic (2025). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This is ancient history now, but for some reason this edit in August 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giuoco_Piano&direction=next&oldid=798302105 partly changed the article to BrE. It was firmly established in AmE from the article's inception in 2005. The topic doesn't have strong national ties to any English-speaking country so the choice is arbitrary. MOS:RETAIN should have prohibited that change, but it wasn't caught. Quale (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

No, that edit is mine from Sept 2017, trying to make consistent w/ words "flavour" and "favour" already found in the article added by some other editor. No doubt I'd forgotten that I'd already investigated the ENGVAR back in 2013 and discovered it was Amer English . That said, will edit the article back to the orig ENGVAR. --IHTS (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus of recent sources (if you look at professionally made courses available, for example) is to use the term Italian Game, which can be broken down further into "classical line(s)" which involve 4.c3 and 5.d4, 4.d3/5.d3 (Giuoco Pianissimo or quiet/slow Italian; the latter name seems to be increasing in popularity), and some sidelines: 4.b4, 4.0-0 with 5.d4, 4.Nc3, and 4.d4. We could move Giuoco Pianissimo to its own article (it has plenty of its own sources) and move mentions of that and White's fourth move alternatives to Italian Game, as subsections of the Giuoco Piano (3...Bc5) section there, as I think Italian Game is currently too small of an article. Does anyone oppose this? Dayshade (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Only lines that are independently notable should have their own articles. That means in practice they should have books dedicated to them by established publishing houses like Gambit, NIC etc. I don't see any books dedicated exclusively to the Giuoco Pianissimo, it usually gets a chapter or two in books about the Italian/Giuoco. In general I oppose the wholesale spinning off of articles and other radical re-organizations of established articles. And please, don't interpret silence as consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of online courses that exist for White that have been created for 4.d3/5.d3, but yes, seems undercovered in book sources. Do you think too much has been spun off from Italian Game? I keep thinking about how it seems ridiculously oversplit in comparison to Ruy Lopez, which is undersplit. Dayshade (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

There's plenty of room to expand coverage of Giuoco Pianissimo in this article first. If it gets out of balance then we can consider a WP:SPINOUT later. Premature article splits are annoying and lead to splintered coverage of closely related material and frequent perma-stubs removed from useful context in the parent article. Take a breath and improve the article as it is. If a split is needed it should become obvious at the appropriate time.

I see quite a bit of material on the d3 lines (relative to the small number of books I have on the GP). For example, Gufeld and Stetsko (1996) treat d3 as being the primary approach and cover it first. They give d3 lines 80 pages but the lines with an early d4 get only 30. FCO and modern PCO also cover d3 as the primary approach by GMs. Watson has some things about d3 in Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 1. Harding and Botterill (1977) predates the shift GM shift to d3 lines so their coverage is much smaller. In fact, Harding and Botterill write on page 33 "This is the Giuoco Pianissimo (Very Quiet Game). Once it was fairly popular, and quite often Capablanca played it, but now it is considered innocuous". I think that's an accurate statement of the feeling about the GP in 1977, but it's a good example of how opening fashion changes. Our articles should reflect current views and should mention earlier views when they are historically significant, but I think this is a warning against trying to make ultimate encyclopedic pronouncements on the value of particular variations.

Re: Italian Game, it doesn't have a single, universally agreed upon definition. Under the Italian Game umbrella, Harding and Botterill include the GP, Evans Gambit, Two Knights Defense, Hungarian Defense, and rare lines. Many modern authors use Italian Game as a synonym for the GP alone but sometimes the Two Knights might still be included. This is perhaps especially true since White often uses d3 lines in both the GP and Two Knights. These can transpose or not but are very closely related.

Generally Wikipedia should probably follow modern practices, but here I think we took the pragmatic approach of not taking sides. GP is unambiguous so it's a good choice for the encyclopedia. It's true that Hungarian Defense is minor enough that it could just be a section in a larger article (probably Italian Game), but it reflects a historical oddity about naming that arose because Kings Pawn openings, particular Open Game variations, were developed much earlier than most Closed or Semi-Closed openings. This affected the nomenclature. A Closed Game equivalent to the Hungarian Defense would likely be called a Variation instead of a Defense, but the nomenclature will always be inconsistent. I don't think we need fret about it. We aren't on a crusade and we don't need to right great wrongs. Quale (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm all good with long replies. And yeah, it comes to mind to me that inclusion might be depending on if the work is targeted for Black (would either be the Two Knights only or an alternative) or White (who needs to know a line for both). And yes, I've noticed the same thing about the Open Game. I think Italian Game would definitely benefit from some expansion. Like maybe the Evans Gambit abbreviated section with a main article link would fit better there than here, which would motivate the narrowing to 4.c3. But you can also keep it all here and add some subsections at Italian Game. Also, for Hungarian Defense, I agree. I guess it would just come down to reader preferences. And not that much is mutually exclusive. Dayshade (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)