Talk:Scotch Game

Isn't an animated gif better then this chess diagram? Vadimka, 21:57 (CET), 20.09.06.

No, definitely not. Too distracting, and being able to look at the branching position is important for the reader trying to follow through the variations discussed. 84.69.195.70 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it odd that the most popular (and arguably most dangerous) line for white in this opening is not mentioned:

e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 ed Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bc e5

Oh well. :)

The article was rated as being of "High" importance. I've re-rated it as "Mid" importance. I don't think the Scotch is nearly as commonly played (and thus important) as its competitors the Ruy Lopez, Giuoco Piano, and Two Knights Defense. Although Kasparov did play it in a few World Championship games against Karpov, Short, and Viswanathan Anand some years ago, it has not caught on. Note also that Fischer played Alekhine's Defense twice against Spassky in their 1972 match, and that's just rated Mid-Importance, and Spassky played the Hippopotamus Defense twice against Petrosian in their 1966 match, and that's rated Low-Importance. Thus, merely being played a few times at world championship level can't be enough to merit a "High". Despite the now-retired Kasparov's occasional advocacy of the Scotch (much like Fischer's occasional advocacy of Alekhine's), I would classify it the same as Alekhine's: an offbeat opening that is occasionally, but not often, seen in high-level games, meriting "Mid" importance. Krakatoa (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it (the Scotch) is played far more than the Giuco Piano and the Two Knight's Defend at an elite level. 5 games at the recent Tata Steel Super-GM tournament were played in the Scotch for example --109.76.106.120 (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the line mentioning Herman Göring as a "first World War Ace". Göring was more famous as a Nazi leader and I think he is irrelevant to a chess article, whether or not he was related to a chess player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcmullin (talk • contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is relevant to this article either. Bubba73 (talk), 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Isnt 6... d5 the proper way to play, instead of 6... d6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoreb (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After Black has accepted the gambit, ...d7-d5 doesn't work because e4xd5 hits the c6-knight and Black cannot recapture with either queen or knight, so Black ends up giving away a pawn for not a lot. For instance in the two-pawn gambit, 4.c3 dxc3 5.Bc4 cxb2 6.Bxb2 d5?! 7.exd5 followed by 0-0 and Re1 is very strong for White. I don't think the line 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Bc4 d5 is any better.

The idea of ...d5 only works when played immediately at move 4, so that 5.exd5 can be met with 5...Qxd5, or delayed with 4...Nge7 preparing 5...d5 and if 6.exd5, Nxd5. Tws45 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what others think of the Göring Gambit section now, I've expanded on it quite a bit (I've taken a strong interest in the line from an early age and have played it a lot with White recently, so am familiar with most of the variations). I've had to rely upon web sources to back up what I wrote, for although I own copies of Muller & Voigt's "Danish Dynamite" and Emms's "Play the Open Games as Black", I don't have them on me at present for inline citations. Do people think the section is disproportionately detailed or could potentially warrant its own page?Tws45 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but on my computer screen the section "Main variations" is too crowded because of the diagrams and the text squashed like sardines in a can. Could the readability there be improved? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tried something (how is now?). Curious: can you tell your screen's dimension? (Mine is 1280 x 1024.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

1024×600. I have now placed the diagrams into the sections that they relate to, which makes more sense to me. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the complaint. Previously the diagrams were in a row, three abreast, with the variations listed below. I didn't see anything crowed or squashed together. Now I think it is worse, as the diagrams often won't be in the sections they pertain to. This is especially noticeable on wide screens (I often use 1920x1200), although you could reasonably suggest that a full-screen browser window at high resolutions makes line lengths too long in general and isn't ideal for reading. The original page arrangement had the diagrams in a table which forced three columns, but the stacking technique I tried above should adapt to the screen width. At about 680 pixels wide and below, the diagrams should be in three rows. From 680 to about 920 there should be two rows, and the first row should have two diagrams. Above 920 all three diagrams should be in the first row. I think that older versions of IE didn't flow the the diagrams correctly and would always have the three diagrams in a single row using scroll bars if necessary, but modern versions of IE should be OK. You can try this by resizing your browser to see if the diagrams flow. Another example of this is Slav Defense. The sections there are very short so the diagrams would not fit well floated in the sections for any but the narrowest of screens. I think the diagrams together form a nice visual key to distinguish the variations (a gallery of sorts), and breaking them up across the article dilutes this. Quale (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Slav Defense page is different because the seven grouped diagrams there are not accompanied by any text to their left or right side. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Toccata I don't understand your last, since after the change I made above, the text appeard first, followed by a row of diagrams w/o any text to either side. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed at the main chess article, Chess#Movement, rows of 3 diags are also used to explain chess moves, w/ text to the left. Does it create a "squished" presentation on your screen there also? (Perhaps the org w/ be vertical there then instead of text to one side!?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There are no problems there, since the text is found above and below the diagrams. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It violates all sorts of opening principles and White has zero advantage after 5...Nh6 6.Nxf7 (not an exclam worthy move) Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5. White has only the queen "developed" and he'll have to move it again soon. If he wastes any more time, as in the well known Meek-Morphy game, he'll be in trouble. Unsurprisingly the stats from human games after 9.Qxc5 are in Black's favour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

5.Ng5 is a pretty obscure line, does it even warrant inclusion? --IHTS (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's turned up in GM games recently, presumably White just wants to get through the opening without playing for advantage. It's not as bad as Pachman (and I) thought it was. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see enough sources dealing with this independently, maybe this makes more sense to have as a section to the Scotch Game article (since this is a variation of that) ? Thoughts welcomed!! Sohom (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Haxo Gambit doesn't merit a separate article (nor does Bxf7+ merit 2 exclams). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources for the name, AfD is appropriate. Cobblet (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is Standard_Chess_Openings - Eric Schiller and another Russian title besides a bunch of youtube videos (which I assume are unreliable), so not complete source free but nothing substantial and definitely nothing that does not discuss it in the context of the Scotch Game. Sohom (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Eric Schiller is a poorly regarded author with a tendency to invent unnecessary opening names not used by any of the standard reference books. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Haxo Gambit. The article has no value, and the name is a recent internet phenomenon originating from the notoriously unreliable Eric Schiller. 5.c3 is simply a main line Scotch Gambit; 5...Nf6 is a straight transposition into the Giuoco Piano; 5...dxc3 while not best is not an error or a "trap for beginners". The whole article is just junk. If there are one or two sentences of value they can be incorporated into Scotch Game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Edit: I removed the junk, and honestly there's very little usable content left. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) P.P.S. here is a link to a review of Standard Chess Openings from the excellent (but moribund) chesscafe website. The reviewer is scathing of the book, and mocks the use of the name "Haxo Gambit". . For some reason the name took off on line, probably influenced by chess.com and lichess players who read terrible books. Still, neither chess.com, lichess, chessgames, 365chess or any online database should be considered reliable sources on opening names, let alone youtube. Wikipedia needs to resist these "internet names" not found in reliable sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. It is just a variation FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess we should do this by the book. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haxo Gambit MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It was previously WP:BLARed, but there appears to be enough individual notability to me for more than a passing mention. Maybe not enough for an article (hence the small section suggestion), but definitely not doing the (admittedly, dubious) opening with some encyclopedically relevant and interesting history behind it justice. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

My instinct is no. Just a subsection here will do fine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, my gut said the same. But, I threw both on the table just to see what others thought. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I added something on it. If anyone wants to improve it, please do. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced it even needs a separate section. It's a bit silly not to retake the pawn. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it could be refactored or moved into something else. Do you have any ideas on a place we could merge the section into, or make it a smaller section? I agree it's dubious and garbage, and falls apart under any line at all without the bishop sac, but more than a single passing mention from an encyclopedic perspective rather than a chess perspective.

Kind of where the idea to make a separate stub and link it came from.

We could just revert it all together too.

I just added a starting point, if you wanna remove it or merge it into another section, feel free. Something more than a passing mention was all I thought was warranted. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we merge Scotch Game, Classical Variation back into this article due to the short length and lack of nesting issues here? Also, given the opposition to a separate header for the Lolli Variation (probably justified given its low notability, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with keeping a section as long as it's noted that it's rare), should we trim down the longer text for it? It seems a bit long to be in a bullet point, which is why I had added a section for it. Dayshade (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The Lolli analyses from 30 years ago were not good anyway (5...Qf6 is better than both 5...Ne7 and 5...d6). I trimmed those so now it's an acceptable length. Dayshade (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: you're the one who thinks the Lolli has too much attention though? Seems like an obvious solution is to just trim out that unnecessary old flawed analysis whose inclusion is pretty non notable even if it weren't flawed. Dayshade (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Also is there a guideline I'm unaware of where false cited claims can't be removed? Dayshade (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What is your source that says it's false? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying you believe the claim that Black can equalize in two ways in that line that is so terrible it shouldn't have its own section? It's pretty rare that a source will explicitly bring up a false claim and talk about how it's false. Can I please just remove it? Dayshade (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not about what you or I "believe", it's about what can be sourced. That's how Wikipedia works. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Where is that applied to whether sourced false claims can be removed as opposed to new unsourced claims? Do you seriously not think those claims of equalizing are not false? And how were you not operating on your own beliefs when e.g. vetoing a new section for it (I agree there shouldn't be one, but it should go along with trimming the unnecessarily long section, which "belabors the point" as you might put it)? Dayshade (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

You have no source that says those claims are false. That's simply your own assertion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems you do not believe the claims yourself either though, do you? And to explain why I disagree, imagine someone found a book that claimed "The Sun can also be referred as the Nus." Would you need to have a cited claim that the Sun cannot be referred to as the Nus in order to remove that claim? Of course not. Dayshade (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what I think. I'm not a reliable source, and neither are you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

How about we expand it back into an independent section then if it's a great way for Black to equalize in multiple ways? Dayshade (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've got another idea. How about you stop removing sourced material just because your computer disagrees with it? Who's to say the computers won't be saying something different in 5, 10, 20 years? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

How about we just remove sourced material that we both agree is false instead without requiring a source to explicitly deny a false claim which is a problematic requirement as I explained but you ignored again? And I think that argument can be applied to explain why these "reliable sources" aren't actually very reliable, as something different actually is being said 30 years (!) down the line. Dayshade (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

And again you seem to be trying to apply guidelines about adding unsourced material to removing false sourced material, which isn't warranted unless there's some policy you can link me showing that it is. Removing the sourced material isn't the same as asserting it is false (although it is in this case false, which explains the very low play rate), which would require a source. Dayshade (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I never said I agreed it was "false". Who is saying the "something different", a reliable source you can cite, or just you and your computer? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that removing false cited claims cannot be done without a direct cited contradicting claim. If you don't agree it's false, then why do you oppose expanding it back into a full section if, as the "reliable" source says, it's a great way to equalize for Black? You can't have it both ways. There won't be another "reliable" source explicitly denying a random false claim. I don't really know any other way to reliably negate the claim besides my computer, very low play rate, and the silence from other sources. Dayshade (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

You keep asserting that it is "false" but you have no ground to stand on because you can't provide an alternative reliable source that says something different. Thing is, this isn't the first time you've tried to remove sourced material based on your own Original Research, you even went so far as to edit a quote you didn't agree with. You also don't seem to understand what is meant by a "reliable source". It doesn't mean it's never wrong, it means it has been published by recognized subject-matter experts, and probably has some editorial oversight. ECO certainly qualifies, someone running Stockfish at home doesn't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know why you're dodging answering whether you think the claim is false or not, but if it's not false, then why shouldn't it be expanded back into a full section if, as the "reliable" source says, it's a great way to equalize for Black? You also seem to really not want to answer why you think that removing false cited claims cannot be done without a direct cited contradicting claim, but please do, especially with reference to why my example with "can also be referred to as the Nus" is not a parallel case. Dayshade (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

As for "editing a quote", I assume you're referring to Grob's Attack, where I remember you said my change removed the context of the quote or something along those lines, but that seemed like a false statement to me, as the comparison with 1.h4 I removed had nothing to do with whether 1.g4 is masochistic or not, the part that remained. Portraying trimming the quote to only one half of two thoughts, especially when quotes are already themselves typically cherrypicked from a longer statement, as "messing" with the quote is not correct, I think.

And no, I understand what you mean by reliable source, I just think you're taking the policies to an unreasonable extent that result in false information being present. Sourced false information is false regardless of whether I discovered it doing original research to verify my work or not. If the claim were true, we would expect 3.Nxd4 to be covered in at least some depth in other books, but it's totally ignored by Wells for example. It is extremely unreasonable to demand a cited negating claim in order to remove a false cited claim for the reasons I outlined before; please rebut this preceding sentence [i.e. explain why it is reasonable besides simply repeating the wikilawyering once more]. I'm willing to grant that the opinion of a position of an engine that can trounce any of these writers shouldn't be included in an article, but not that it can't be at least part of a reason to consider removing a 30 year old claim about a line you agree yourself is bad. And again this is about removing a disputed cited claim that has reasonable reason to be doubted, not adding a claim that the opposite is true, where I'd agree a higher level of verification would be necessary. Dayshade (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Re Ihardlythinkso (not sure why you reverted yourself; I agree this is silly but your comment seemed fine) - The argument assumes the "Nus" claim had a citation to a reliable source. The scenario is intended to point out that false cited claims should be able to be removed. Regardless, then I contend that the claim about 3...Nxd4 demands multiple refs given the suspiciousness of the ignorance of it by both Wells and Pavlovic (Modernized Scotch Game, 2019) and Stockfish's dislike of it. I really don't know why we're fighting about this though. Dayshade (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor pointed out that a properly ref'd equalizing line by Sozin in article Semi-Italian Game had to be wrong since it actually led to forced mate (!). What to do? I decided to keep the ref but doc the forced mate (which probably wasn't WP:OR since is demonstrable OTB). --IHTS (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

(Here's the diff if anyone is curious) I think we could do something like this to downplay the flawed analysis as a compromise, but I'm still not seeing a compelling reason not to just go ahead and remove both of these claims as there are countless other claims already not included in the articles from many reliable sources. What made you elect to keep the ref instead of just removing it? Also, I think the context on that article is a bit diff than this one, as that's a commentary within a game whereas this is just a paragraph about a Black third move. Dayshade (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

A judgment call on a low-trafficked article. Retaining the ref w/ refutation added seemed better and actually performs as sort of an errata on the Harding & ECO sources in event a reader someday puts their nose in those sources to do a compare. Weird, but nice too. ;) --IHTS (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be a non-notability issue for flawed analysis though? Dayshade (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No doubt. It might bug an editor tending deletionist, whereas my own editing tends inclusionist. That said, WP benefits from aggressive trimmers like Max, whom I appreciate. --IHTS (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like the three sources cited in the section about Lolli's variation are reasonable. Using a database, I have found reasonably current games, by players stronger than myself, involving 5... d6, 5... Ne7, and 5... Qf6. If you are saying that they are making "false claims", then I would say that the burden of proof is on you.

As for how important the line is, I agree that it is generally lightly covered in opening books and articles, and probably not very often played. So generally speaking, we should not dwell to long on it. But how long is too long? I am not going to suggest an answer. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

For reference to other readers, the disputed text is: "Nonetheless, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) concludes that Black equalises with 5...Ne7 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.Qd5 Qf6 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Be2 c6 10.Qb3 Ng6 11.f4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 d6 (I. Sokolov).[23] Similarly, Harald Keilhack concludes in Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3 (p. 21) that although ...Nxd4 is a "non-line" these days, if Black continues perfectly it is not clear that White gets even a small advantage. Keilhack analyses 5.Qxd4 d6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c6 10.a4 Qa5 11.Bh4 and now after 11...Qe5 or 11...Be6, "White has at most this indescribable nothingness which is the advantage of the first move." (Id. p. 25) The ECO also concludes that Black equalises after the alternative 4.Nxe5 Ne6 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Be3 d6 9.Nd3 Nxe4 10.Nxe4 d5 (Parma)."

5...Qf6 is Stockfish's choice (I saw +0.6 (not bad) while doing my Oh-Are, more like +1.2 for 5...d6 and 5...Ne7), but 5...Qf6 is ignored above (I could add it). To me it seems that there's excessive number of cherry picked quotes that make the line seem better than it is that I don't see being done for other dubious lines on other articles. I remember Max had trimmed this down a lot before I started editing chess articles as it had undue attention in years past. Maybe it was a pet line of some editor at some point? Ie a POV issue, which would make sense with the cherry picked quotes. You also can see this issue e.g. at London System - there are like six citations about the opening being boring, probably POV motivated.

You seem to misunderstand what I'm saying is false; I'm not saying it's false that it's playable, occasionally played, and notable, but only that it's not true that "Black equalises with 5...Ne7 [or ...d6]" unless perhaps you are limiting it to the 10-12 move continuations which aren't forced at all (Stockfish recommends 6.Bf4 instead of 6.Nc3 against 5...d6 for example). Keilhack's quote is fine, I guess, it's these two ECO quotes that make a claim of equality that bother me. If even the main lines barely promise equality for Black yet these Lolli lines are unmentioned in books that are specific to the Scotch (including the 2019 one), and Stockfish disagrees too, I think all of this combined is sufficient evidence to warrant removing the 1997 ECO claims of equality (without adding any opposite claims as I've said before). There's no proof in either direction as chess is not solved, but the preponderance of the evidence seems to support there not being equality for Black. I'm not sure what would satisfy the burden of proof beyond this, so could you elaborate on your views on that? Like, the evidence just seems clear to me, so would need more detail about what would make it clearer. Maybe I should've emphasized that I was referring to the equality claims earlier. Now I'm not sure if Max had been on the same page as me cause it felt like he was being willfully obtuse about it at the time, but maybe I read too much into it. Dayshade (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, you don't need conclusive proof to remove a disputed claim (you would to add an opposite claim, again not what I'm proposing), right? IHTS said something in their reverted comment about just needing to have some good evidence to cast doubt which would then require a search for more sources (which I highly doubt will pan out given the absence in Scotch-focused books), which I think I have, although I think there's more than just doubt myself lol. Again, when limiting to the equality claims. Dayshade (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Your chess engine is not a source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Missing the point. I am not proposing to cite engines or databases, but they are useful for detecting errors/omissions in old "reliable" sources that can then be discussed such as this issue. You don't need to keep repeating yourself. If your position is really that all we can do is just copy from old books and not check any of the work with any other non-book sources or tools, I'm sorry but the danger of false (outdated)/biased information is just too great. Dayshade (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not our job to be at the cutting edge of opening theory, or even to be "right". We reflect what has been published by reliable sources. See WP:RGW.MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Most of what we are currently saying about the Lolli variation was added in this edit from 2007. It is unreasonable to accuse that guy of pushing a POV; I would assume (WP:AGF) that he just did the best he could with the library available to him in 2007.

Since you are not proposing to actually cite Stockfish, I can't fault you for WP:OR. I too ran an engine to prepare for this discussion; something I do a lot more these days, since I very seldom play actual serious games. I visited Lichess, which uses Stockfish, on my desktop. It is currently saying +0.4 for 5... Qf6, although it said +0.5 for 5. Qxd4. The lowering of eval for White after a Black move doesn't inspire my confidence; it shows the horizon effect, even though we are not engaged in heavy tactics. Lichess says +0.9 for either 5... Ne7 or 5... d6. The fact that I get different numbers from you means that readers will likely get different numbers from either of us. The difficulty of reproducing results is another reason why we don't cite engines directly.

I think that the 2007 edit put undue emphasis on the Lolli variation, inasmuch as it is so seldom played and so seldom mentioned by credible sources. As for the correctness of the variations it cites, I think that it is unlikely that the variations given by Sokolov and Keilhack represent best play by White; but in opening theory, it is routine to find improvements on old lines, and describing old lines as "false claims" is excessive rhetoric. By the way, NCO (1999) gives a couple of lines after 4... Nge7 that transpose into the 4... Nxd4 5. Qxd4 Ne7 variation, eventually ending with plus-over-equals. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I checked and lichess has a higher depth (~50) cloud eval, so your numbers should be trusted. I'd bet the +0.5 to +0.4 is probably really something like +0.46 going to +0.44 and/or due to differing depths, though. Regardless, the evals agree that "equalizing" is not accurate. I wasn't accusing, just speculating. The edit is probably fine yeah. Still curious what you thought of the issue with London System btw (also Talk:Vienna Game, Talk:Evans Gambit, Talk:Two Knights Defense, Talk:King's Gambit). Again I am specifically referring to "Black equalizes with ____" as a false claim or at least highly dubious and thus not worthy of inclusion. I guess since it qualifies it with "ECO concludes that..." you could argue it's not false from that perspective, but what I mean is that the analysis is flawed and isn't notable enough to be in an article like this. What do you specifically think of the truth of the equalizing statement as opposed to the rest?

My proposed text (for the disputed portion, not the entire paragraph of the line) would be this: "Harald Keilhack concluded (turn this next into inline: Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3 (p. 21)) that although ...Nxd4 is now a non-line (or "rarely seen[/played]"), if Black continues perfectly it is not clear that White gets even a small advantage." This avoids unnecessary mentions of unforced suboptimal move sequences (ie this should make these non-notable). Then I'd probably add a sentence that mentions 5...Qf6 along with 5...Ne7 and 5...d6 (maybe these would get a "recommended by ECO" or something?). Stockfish also likes 5...c6. Also, 5.Nxe5 deserves a mention. Dayshade (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: what I see as problematic is not only the use of engines as a source, which obviously can't be done, but also the use of engines as a reason to delete sourced material, accompanied by constant assertions that the analysis is "false", as if the engine represents the absolute truth about a position. In my opinion Stockfish overrates Whites's advantage after 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4 Nge7 6.Nc3 Nc6 (or whatever move order you like). It has not found an absolute tactical refutation, like IHTS's missed mate example. It is likely that other engines will have a different opinion. I do agree that the paragraph needs trimming, but if we're going to deprecate the ECO analysis, it should not be based on what the latest engine says, but on a more recent reliable source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop making a straw man out of what I've said. No where am I saying there is a tactical refutation, just that "Black equalizes with _____" is unjustified; even if I were to back off "false", the equalizing would still be a dubious non notable claim. Dayshade (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Was talking to Bruce, not to you. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I generally agree. While the 2007 edit causes us to give undue emphasis to the Lolli variation, undoing it would not be an improvement.

I'm not sure we can hope for a more recent reliable source. Earlier in the paragraph, we're citing Freeborough and Ranken 1896, and most likely the most trenchant analysis is going to be from there or from some contemporary source. It is unorthodox to cite such an ancient source for opening analysis, but presumably, in those days, both players sat down to a game prepared for a Lolli. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Tuns out there is a more recent source. Bezgodov is a GM, Barsky is an IM. The caveat is that they're writing a repertoire book with recommendations for a practical OTB player who wants to play the Scotch, rather than searching for the "truth" of the position. As such, they recommend 7.Qd2!? in the line I mentioned. I'm sure it's not the "best" move according to the engines, but they recommend it as the move most likely to get a win at the board, because the opponent is less likely to be familiar with it. https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Scotch_Game/0lnNEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Ooooo nice find. I'll rewrite it with that and the Keilhack quote later today probably. I also had found a pdf of Modernized Scotch Game (Pavlovic 2019). Dayshade (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Seriously, I wish you'd step back. Besides being annoying, the way you spam talk page discusssions and reply to absolutely everything, often with several paragraphs, actually makes it very difficult to discuss anything. The purpose of talk pages is to achieve consensus, but when you try to dominate the discussion it disrupts the consensus building process because people feel like they can't get a word in edgewise, and new people coming along can't be bothered wading through all the massive walls of text.

Throughout it all you've shown an evident contempt for Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, preferring your own original research and even putting the word "reliable" in scare quotes. To be clear:

• Although WP:AGEMATTERS, ECO is the very definition of a reliable source.
• Original research cannot be used as a basis for an edit, whether that's adding material or removing it.
• You cannot remove sourced material just because you "know" it's "wrong". See WP:TRUTH. We're not here to create new opening theory, only to reflect what has been published by reliable sources. We are by definition and design out of date, behind the curve. We are not cutting edge, and we are not always "right".

You could potentially be a good editor, but you need to familiarise yourself with the policies first. It's not easy, it takes time, and I'm still learning. Learn to walk before you run. I've struggled with that too, but I like to think I'm a competent editor now.

I think the best way forward from this mess is to close this discussion and start a new section, specifically for discussing the best way to treat the Lolli Variation in the article. I would appreciate it if you could not reply to anyone and just let them have their say. This will help us to establish a consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I was genuinely like "oh that looks like a good source, I'll look at it more later", it was not meant to be sarcastic at all. Maybe the "Ooooo" came off negatively accidentally? Look, we clearly have very different communication styles that are worsening the arguments between us. I dislike being repeatedly called "annoying", "obsessed with opening names", "spamming", and "bludgeoning" (I've already explained why I think I am at the very most bludgeoning no more than you are, if at all, but you declined to rebut anything again), and being completely dismissed because of "MWOT" for writing a few paragraphs instead of one or two. We've been having perfectly productive consensus-building discussions such as this one; I feel like I've gained a lot from various discussions with people despite the issues. I would personally guess people are probably more scared off wading in by your berating me and my resulting frustration than by writing a few paragraphs instead of one (also, in my experience single sentence talk page comments get ignored just as easily), but maybe not. I don't think you'd like it if I was just like "tl;dr" and ignored your comments. I also genuinely thought you were being willfully obtuse earlier above because of your criticism of the line that felt contradictory, but never mind about that if not.

From the beginning, all I've wanted was to hear your and Quale's feedback, ask questions, and adjust accordingly, but I find it very hard to get more constructive criticism and now I feel like I have the eye of Sauron on me when I'm editing sometimes. You've repeatedly ignored my follow up questions (not all, but most) and counterarguments I've made regarding policies even when I've restated them and specifically asked for a response. I honestly still do not think your read on the policies is entirely correct. For example, you claimed that all claims need to be cited (maybe you weren't referring to inline?), but this is not true. WP:WHEN clearly says "inline citations for quotations, whether using direct or indirect speech, and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Whether a move is commonly seen in response to another is not likely to be challenged as it can easily be verified with a quick look at an opening database. You also never rebutted my counterargument for minimal use of databases via WP:PRIMARY (not for win rates, just for establishing lines exist), and other counterarguments I can't remember.

I'm using "reliable" in quotes because it is very irritating to me how unreliable these old sources can be in practice, motivated by my frustration about how I feel like I'm being bludgeoned by you about the matter. And I have started using more book sources regardless, even though I still disagree with your views that e.g. a video published by a grandmaster or well known IM is unacceptable, as I see no reason to think they will have any meaningfully lower accuracy than older non-self-published books, and neither would have anything like you'd expect from a scientific article/etc, as chess is just a game. I'd agree about OR not being able to be used to remove cited material if e.g. we were writing about living people or medicine, but I don't think it applies well to chess openings. Bruce above seemed to heavily imply it's fine to use Stockfish to challenge cited analysis. I was not just randomly asserting the falsity; there were good reasons. Also, WP:TRUTH seems to downplay itself and has a lot of past tense. Anyway, probably shouldn't keep going as otherwise it'll get too MWOT :P I won't reply to the later section for a while as you wish. Dayshade (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth. Although I use Lichess/Stockfish all the time in non-Wikipedia contexts, I don't ordinarily touch it here. I did so this once for demonstration purposes.

You may recall that when you invited me to contribute to the discussion at Talk:King's Gambit, I begged off, and gave as my reason that it looked like too much work. In retrospect I was saying what User:MaxBrowne2 is saying, but I managed to couch it in less direct language. It's a lot of work to deal with a wall of words, and as a rule, it isn't any more rewarding than composing an answer to a single question. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I read too much into "Since you are not proposing to actually cite Stockfish, I can't fault you for WP:OR" and so on then. Although, I'm not sure of a better way to identify flawed analysis assuming other sources do not mention the line. I'm disappointed to hear you agree about MWOT stuff cause I don't think it's a fair criticism personally and seems to be used by Max to just dismiss my points, and also if people just answered the questions/points in them then I wouldn't have to make further long replies. I also just think they're generally not that massive. I looked at some of the other pages that link to MWOT and they're often a screen or more whereas mine are typically half a screen. I still would be interested to know if you would prefer or not prefer the spin off on KG. Dayshade (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SATISFY. Nobody is obligated to satisfy you. Don't write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph and then expect people to respond to every little point. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I guess that means the same applies for you towards me then. Dayshade (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization of Main Line/main line

As an aside, is there a consensus on this? The convention I'd been able to pick up so far is that sentences like "The main line continues..." and so on do not take caps, but referring to a specific line dubbed as the "Main Line" (e.g. in headers or the captions of diagram templates) akin to if it were named the ____ Variation takes caps; does that seem wrong? Otherwise, I'd have to go back and change my past work. Afaik I had largely seen Main Line capitalized in such situations before, with some exceptions such as this page which consistently keeps it uncapitalized. I'd lean towards capitalizing in headers and diagram captions myself, but idk. Dayshade (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"Main Line" or "main line" is used inconsistently across WP openings articles (mostly "Main line", methinks). Other inconsistencies exist too that've never had discussion threads to form any consensus, so nothing new re that. Have seen an argument that continued use is considered defacto "consensus", but that might have been made up. --IHTS (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I should go back and decapitalize it then since I'm probably a big source of the capitalized Line writing. But I still think there are some merits to capitalizing it at least in header names, so idk. Dayshade (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of cap'd "Main line" occurrences that've been around for quite some time. --IHTS (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

"Main Line" (or "Main line") doesn't have an entry in the Oxford Companion to Chess. Besides "main lines" can change. 4.c3 and 5.d4 is no longer considered the "main line" of the Giuoco Piano, 4.c3 and 5.d3 (or vice versa) is. 4...Bb7 is no longer considered the "main line" of the Queen's Indian, 4...Ba6 is, and 4...Bb7 is sometimes called "the old main line". This leads me to believe "main line" should be treated as a description rather than a name, and shouldn't be capitalized. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. From memory the occurrences are mostly "Main line", and methinks editors have used same as an identifying descriptor, not a sort of title. That said, that writing style is no doubt technically incorrect, became mimicked, as editor I know I followed suit too. The topic hasn't been brought up until now, am sure because WP:CHESS editors aren't fond of spending time forming consensus or "standards" on things form not funciton. ;) --IHTS (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's as problematic in a header or diagram caption though, cause otherwise it clashes with Variation and so on being capitalized. I'm down to go back and decapitalize everything eventually but that is an inelegancy that concerns me. Dayshade (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Mieses

I did find Fundamental Chess Openings (2009, Paul van der Sterren, more recent than Hooper/Whyld) referring to this as 6.e5 which seems more useful of a definition than 5.Nxc6 and reflects what chess.com has. Should I change it back or leave it as what Hooper/Whyld says? Dayshade (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Classical

I mentioned this earlier, but does anyone oppose merging Scotch Game, Classical Variation back in to this article? Dayshade (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The previous discussion is a mess, so let's just try to arrive at a consensus on how this article should treat the Lolli Variation. Please don't derail this thread by spamming, replying to absolutely everything etc. Treat it as an informal WP:RFC and let everyone have their say. How much attention should the Lolli Variation get? Should the current level of coverage be trimmed, and if so by how much? Which sources should be used? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The sections for 4... Nxd4 and 4... Nge7 5. Nc3 Nxd4 in the monograph by Bezgodov are going to be very useful. But it's late at night, I'll have more to say about this some time soon, though I may be unavailable tomorrow (Thursday). Bruce leverett (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not expert in the Scotch so I'll rely on others to correct anything chessic I get wrong. The Bezgodov and Barsky book that MaxBrowne2 found looks like an excellent source to improve the article and has helpful material on these relatively obscure lines that many other books ignore.

Early in the article Scotch Game#Other lines says

4...Nxd4?! transposes to the dubious Lolli Variation.

It looks like the 2007 editor missed this or it was added later since the point of their edits was to assert that the Lolli isn't dubious.

I think the coverage should be reversed. The line 4...Nxd4 5.Qxd4 should be covered here and the Lolli V. coverage should mention the transposition. The Lolli is pretty obscure, and many of my general opening books don't mention it even if they do talk a little about 4...Nxd4.

Back to the Lolli text later in the article. This is all I would say:

3...Nxd4, the Lolli Variation, was popular in the 19th century and received five columns of analysis in Freeborough and Ranken's 1896 opening manual Chess Openings Ancient and Modern. After 4.Nxe5 Black can equalize with 4...Ne6!, so White should play 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.Qxd4 to transpose to the main line 3...exd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Qxd4.(The Scotch Game, Bezgodov and Barsky, 2023, chapter 1)

Then some of the Lolli material I omit should be moved into the 4...Nxd4 section. First, 4...Nxd4?! should probably lose the ?! and I think the claim that it is dubious is slightly too strong.

It is often described today as a strategic error, since after 4.Nxd4 exd4 5.Qxd4 (5.Bc4 is known as the Napoleon Gambit) White's queen stands on a central square and cannot be chased away very effectively (5...c5? is a seriously weakening move that blocks Black's king's bishop).

I think this text is a good start to the coverage and I would keep it but move it under 4...Nxd4. The claim that 5...c5 is seriously weakening is true but it would be better if we could cite it. (Bezgodov and Barsky would work.) GM Martyn Kravtsiv, PCO (2025), p. 49, says "Without a black knight ready to come to c6, the queen is very powerfully centralized on d4, and the pressure it exerts on g7 makes it hard for Black to develop his kingside in any natural way."

The Lolli coverage continues

Nonetheless, the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) concludes that Black equalises with 5...Ne7 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.Qd5 Qf6 8.0-0 Ne5 9.Be2 c6 10.Qb3 Ng6 11.f4 Bc5+ 12.Kh1 d6 (I. Sokolov). Similarly, Harald Keilhack concludes in Knight on the Left: 1.Nc3 (p. 21) that although ...Nxd4 is a "non-line" these days, if Black continues perfectly it is not clear that White gets even a small advantage. Keilhack analyses 5.Qxd4 d6 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5 c6 10.a4 Qa5 11.Bh4 and now after 11...Qe5 or 11...Be6, "White has at most this indescribable nothingness which is the advantage of the first move." (Id. p. 25)

ECO and Keilhack are WP:RS, but I'm not sure these assessments are correct. Wikipedia can include cited claims that are not correct and isn't even required to refute them, but judgement is required. We are also permitted to choose to not include claims that we are convinced are incorrect even if those claims are made in reliable sources. Reliable sources can make mistakes and can be superseded by newer assessments. I don't think that these ECO lines or Keilhack are significant enough to warrant inclusion unless we're convinced that they are accurate.

Additionally, I don't think ECO is usually the best source for chess opening articles. In wikipedia, assessments of openings should be more general and I don't think using ECO to cite particular lines to claim equality is wise or even useful to most readers. In my view, including this kind of analysis in wikipedia (Budapest Gambit, cough, cough) is a very bad idea.

I understand wanting to counter the assumption that White is winning after 4...Nxd4, but I think the claim that Black equalizes is excessive. My impression is that White is slightly better to simply better after 5.Qxd4. If that's true and we can cite it, I would remove these sentences and replace them with a simple statement that Black can't achieve full equality. Saying too much is unnecessary and a mistake. MaxBrowne's excellent source might be used here.

Black is unable to achieve full equality after 5...Qf6, 5...Ne7, etc. (The Scotch Game, Bezgodov and Barsky, 2023, chapter 1)

And be done with it. I see no reason to give long lines to "prove" that Black can't fully equalize. Just cite the source. Quale (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Having looked at both Bezgodov/Barsky and Pavlovic, I have to retract anything I said about this line never being covered by reliable sources. I may also have to retract what I said about it never being played; but obviously it is still rare.

I agree with conclusions drawn by User:Quale that: (1) we don't have to cite variations to say that the Lolli leaves Black "unable to achieve full equality"; citing either Bezgodov/Barsky or Pavlovic should be sufficient; (2) we don't have to cite a variation to say that Black is OK after 3... Nxd4 4.Nxe5 Ne6.

This leaves us discarding quite a bit of the 2007 edit, which I don't like to do, but we have better sources than the ones used then, and so I think we can do this with a clear conscience.

I also am OK with Quale's suggestions for reorganizing things.

I have not looked at Khalifman/Soloviov. The table of contents is easy to find on the Web, but I didn't find anything beyond that. It's not expensive as an e-book, but I don't like the idea of buying that just in order to work on this obscure corner of Wikipedia. The publisher is Chess Stars, ltd., not the same as Thinker's Publishing, which published Pavlovic, but I agree that it's an amusing, if not remarkable, coincidence. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• By the way, there's also the book "The Modern Scotch" by Khalifman and Soloviov (Thinker's Press, 2019). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
  • That's fascinating that it came out the same year, with a similar title and publisher name to the other book I found. Dayshade (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Pinging @Krakatoa:, who wrote the original text (it's been somewhat modified since then). He's not as active as an editor these days but he still turns up every now and then. Would be interesting to get his view. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@@Bruce leverett: "Additionally, I don't think ECO is usually the best source for chess opening articles. In wikipedia, assessments of openings should be more general and I don't think using ECO to cite particular lines to claim equality is wise or even useful to most readers. In my view, including this kind of analysis in wikipedia (Budapest Gambit, cough, cough) is a very bad idea." - strongly agree. Should I go ahead and make an edit based on the new source? Dayshade (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Quale has offered the latest and probably best plan to rewrite. MaxBrowne2 has pinged Krakatoa, and that normally might prompt us to wait for a reply, although of course we might not get one. It's a matter of judgment now who will do the rewrite and when. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)