Talk:Two Knights Defense

Is there anybody who could create the beginning of the articles on Estrin and the Max Lange Attack ?

--Eric Guez 14:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

... and the same for Sveshnikov ?

--Eric Guez 14:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Every single line of the Two Knights ends in equality?! Says who? The idea that 4.Ng5 Bc5!? equalizes is particularly surprising. I thought Anand pretty much refuted it in a game against Beliavsky some years ago that began 5.Bxf7+! Ke7 6.Bd5! -- although Anand managed to lose. I also doubt the Fritz and Ulvestad lines equalize, and 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 is pretty fishy, although I'm not sure if it's been refuted outright. I doubt whether there's even a consensus among theoreticians that Black equalizes in the main line after 4.Ng5. Krakatoa 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Certainly not. The positional judgements need to be edited. They weren't there before, they are not there now. Feel free to edit appropriately... I have removed the "="s. Just stick your evaluation between the <td></td> tags on the appropriate variation. I also think something is wrong with variation 6 -- not sure what was intended here. It also would be nice if the theory table had the complete main line at the top, with things like the Traxler as variations on it rather than vice versa. ThreeE 20:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• My opinion is that we must be careful in assessing opening variations since the theory changes constantly. I have tried to tend to fairly vague assessments, but it's hard, since I have read that even the Lolli Attack, generally considered very good for White, is uncertain after a correspondence game a few years ago. I think for current evaluation of opening lines people will always want to go to ECO or other sources, and that wikipedia can better explain the possibilities rather than offer precise evaluations that are likely to be overturned in the future. Certainly we can continually update the articles as the theory changes, but I also think it would be interesting to do a historical look at opening theory. "In 1851 Bilguer's Handbuch said xxxxx, in yyyy the first version of Modern Chess Openings said zzzzz, and in 1999 Nunn's Chess Openings suggested wwwwww." Quale 01:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a couple of concerns with the tabular presentation of the opening moves.

1. The tables are an absolute bear to edit.
2. The tables make it unclear which move is actually characteristic of the variation.

As to issue 2, it is possible in the text to specify which moves characterize the variation, but I think it shows that the theory tables at once give too little information and too much. In Ulvestadt's V. it is well known that 6.Bf1 is the correct reply, but people still do play 6.Bxb5? and that's still part of the variation.

I do like the clean look of the table, but I'm not sure it's the best presentation of the information for the wikipedia audience. If the Ruy Lopez article goes this direction it will need a major overhaul. The current presentation of the Ruy is far from perfect and I expect that it will improve as people have good ideas, but I don't know if a theory table will be the best way to go. Quale 01:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to like the tables versus the listings we see elsewhere. Having said that, I do believe that most of the wikipedia entries for openings are tending towards to much analysis -- some of it original. I actually like this analysis, and the back and forth debate that you see on wikipedia. Since it does tend to be original research, I have created a Chess Opening Theory Wikibook, but I don't think most of the chess wikipedians are too warm for it yet. It is hard to imagine the effort of moving all of the analysis there though -- I'm not sure I would support that. Where appropriate, I have copied it (as time allows) and have tried to move the more detailed analysis there. I'd personally like to see a WCO in the spirit of NCO, ECO, and MCO. Suggestions are welcome... ThreeE 01:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• I also agree that the table format takes more effort, but I think once you do it a few times, it's pretty easy. I guess I think the benefits outweigh the costs -- but probably more for intermediate and advanced chess players. ThreeE 01:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Quale has a point. Right now this table just gives main lines (e.g. Bf1! in the Ulvestad and Fritz, 5.Bxf7+! in the Wilkes-Barre). I don't know how, or if, the tables can really give useful guidance to readers. As we all know, NCO/ECO/MCO/BCO would spend several pages of small print on the Two Knights, with 200 or so footnotes. We can't very well do that here. On a more minor point, where do we put equals signs and such, and is there a way to make the symbols for "small advantage White," "large advantage Black," and so forth? Krakatoa 16:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah -- put the evaluations between the td tags -- I took out the ='s that were there earlier. ThreeE 16:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

(12-01-06) Nigel Short recently played 8.Qf3 and obtained a good position (1-0); at first sight, black played strong moves but wasn't able to get enough play for the pawn. I think this line deserves more explanations. See the page for more details : http://www.chesspublishing.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1158953544 .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.124.6.159 (talk • contribs) 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Two different spellings, "Ulvestad" and "Ulvestadt", appeared in the article. I've changed it to the first throughout, which is the one I've seen elsewhere. If this is not correct please amend 213.249.135.36 17:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tell me (or point me to a source that tells me) why white plays 5.Bxf7+ and not 5.Nxf7 it seems to me that Nxf7 wins black's rookAndrew zot 11:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that after 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+! white is in some danger of getting mated. Not that 5.Nxf7 isn't played, but if theory hasn't changed since I last looked at this (quite possible), black gets enough of an attack to ensure at least a draw by repetition, despite the loss of material.--OinkOink 07:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m sure this is what attracted me to the Italian Game in the first place; in one line (I can’t remember where; Traxler? Jerome?) it had Nxf7, forking Queen and Rook, and the comment said “ White is now doomed, and faces checkmate in x moves” ; it was so counter-intuitive, I was hooked! Moonraker12 09:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

5.Bxf7+ is indeed a very strong move and most likely better then the chaotic Nxf7 ChessCreator 12:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how white would get mated, 5.Nxf7! forking Queen and Rook then 5...Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Ng4+? 7.Qxg4 Qe7 8.Nxh8! with white in a clear lead. AS Artimour (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

One example. 5....Bxf2+ 6. Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7. Kg1 Qh4 8. Nxh8? (8. g3 Nxg3 9. Nxh8 Nd4 10. hxg3 Qxg3+ 10. Kf1 Qf4+ 11. Kg1 Qg3+ 12. Kf1 Qf4+ draw by repetition) Qf2# ChessCreator (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article used to say that the Two Knights was "analyzed by Polero in 1580". Now it says it was "first recorded by Polerio in 1580". This may be true, but it should be checked against sources to make sure it's accurate, as the new claim is stronger than the old one. I think I added the original sentence to this article a couple of years ago taking care to base it on one of the sources listed at the bottom of the page. (Unfortunately I didn't use inline cites.) It might require a different source to justify the new claim. I'll look at the sources I have. Quale 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I got this from the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Chess Games ; I’ve added it as a source. Moonraker12 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize—I do. Sorry, you're right. (Actually I mean I'm glad you're right, I'm sorry I questioned it.) I didn't have any reference materials handy, but looking it up in H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess, page 824 says Polerio was the first to put many openings in print: QGD (Slav Defense), fianchetto defenses, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Nimzowitch's D., Pirc, many variations of the King's Gambit, Center Game, several variations of the Bishop's O. including the Boden-Kieseritzky G., Latvian G., Two Knight's D., and Four Knights Game. Quale 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the source for this, as I've found a better one. Estrin's Two Knights Defence states Polerio first analyzed this in 1560 (!); though again, most of the work on it was done after the 1850's. Moonraker12 15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, now it looks as if he wrote it when he was 12 years old! Still, thats the date Estrin gives, both in the forward, and in the chapter on the Morphy variation (that's the line Polerio followed). I'm getting a bit lost, now! Moonraker12 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

I think Estrin is mistaken, or it's a typo. (If the book is a translation, that could also be the cause). Our article on Giulio Polerio says he is ascribed some manuscripts from 1580 to 1600. Murray lists a manuscript from around 1574 that may be due to Polerio, but that's the earliest date for any of his writings I've seen. The manuscript that introduced a large number of openings is reported to be from 1594. Quale 05:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You’re probably right about the Estrin reference, but… it’s a source, what can you do? And I re-checked the OECG reference; my mistake (again!) it was a game by Greco in 1620, not Polerio (and it followed a different line to the one given by Estrin).(This is starting to feel like trying to nail a jelly to the wall!) How about “the late 1500’s”, or “the latter part of the 16th century”, with the same source? Moonraker12 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've gone with that. Moonraker12 10:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this article more accurately named defence. Having checked a little the word 'defense' is an Americanism and is given as an 'U.S. spelling' in English dictionaries - have a Collins dictionary in my hand. Also http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?js=off&dictionary=Choose+your+dictionary&text=defence

I've only seen chess books use the term Defence. See cover picture here -> http://www.amazon.com/Knights-Defence-Batsford-Chess-Openings/dp/0713484411 Wikipedia uses the word defence for all countries except the US http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_minister ChessCreator (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Answering my own old question. Basically no, Wikipedia is in the English variation that the first major contributor choose, in this case American English. ChessCreator (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm Prussian Game occurs with position 4. Ng5 has being played? plus Preußische Partie and ECO codes from German wiki. ChessCreator (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

'Unzicker, Wolfgang (1975). Knaurs Neues Schachbuch für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene.' (in German) says Prussian is after 3. ...Nf6 this gives conflict with above links. Looking for a reliable source, but it seems Prussian is not given in English books, perhaps solution is not to include it at all. ChessCreator (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Wolfgang Unzicker wrote in his book Knaurs Neues Schachbuch für Anfänger und ::Fortgeschrittene. Droemer Knaur. München/Zürich 1975. ISBN 3-426-02242-7:

Das Zwei-Springer-Spiel im Nachzuge oder die preußische Partie

Diese Eröffnung wird durch folgende Züge bestimmt: 1. e2-e4 e7-e5; 2. Sg1-f3 Sb8-c6; 3. Lf1-c4 ::Sg8-f6. (page 57)

(...)

1. Der Angriff auf f7

4.Sf3-g5 (page 58)

(...)

2. Der Vorstoß d2-d4

Nach den Zügen 1. e2-e4 e7-e5; 2. Sg1-f3 Sb8-c6; 3. Lf1-c4 Sg8-f6 kann Weiß auch 4. d2-d4 ziehen. (page 60)

Best wishes, Mibelz (talk), 17:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

The Two Knights Defense came to be designated the Prussian game, named after Bilguer's opening monography from 1839, see here - this was indeed the test run for the famous handbook's methodology (variation analysis, notation etc). However, the traditional naming "Two Knights Defense" prevailed in the end. With the ECO code, as the German wiki article explains, the "Prussian Game" got to be exclusively reserved for the Ng5 variation - which is, for history's sake, a good solution, because von Bilguer dealt only with Ng5, with a special focus on the Fried Liver Attack. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Ng5 variation (C57) is called the Prussian Game / Prussian attack in many languages, e.g. "attacco Prussiano" (italian) and is a variation occuring in the Two Knights Defense. There are other variations in the Two-Knights Defense that do not transpose into the quiet Italian game (4. d3), most notably the Max Lange Attack (C55) (which can also be reached via other move orders, but this is the most common one, therefore it is ascribed to the Two Knights Defense). There is no reason not to mention the name in the article. Arminius4 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article as currently written seems more like an essay in a chess newsletter than one for Wikipedia. Especially egregious is the use of last names only, which would be like writing an article about the American Revolution and only using "Howe," "Marion" and "Bergone." 24.24.244.132 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(10/08/12) The move 8.Qf3 in the main line is really more complicated and interesting than described. The current comment is strongly inaccurate and has to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.203.95.80 (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I found Estrin's 1970 book in Russian in djvu format, so I suppose it can be cited. He is the ultimate source for most of the analysis presented, including the lines attributed to Gligoric/ECO. He names "V. Lopukhin" as the originator of 7.Nc3 but gives no other details. His bibliography at the end includes various Soviet chess magazines, so my guess is that Lopukhin was an amateur who wrote a letter to one of these magazines pointing out 7.Nc3. There is also an A. Lopukhin who was awarded the Soviet Master title in 1978 but that looks like a different guy. Alternatively, we could link to Harding's 1996 chesscafe article which presents more or less the same analysis. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The Russian edition also cites the game Van Steenis-Vlagsma, Beverwijk 1942 which Harding also cites in chesscafe kibitzer #5 and #33 as an important theoretical game demonstrating the unsoundness of 4...Nxe4. Estrin considers both 8.d4 and 8.dxe5 to be good.MaxBrowne (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added from Estrin The Two Knights' Defence 1971 English edition, replacing Gligoric/ECO (which clearly just replicated). Even the Harding/Botterill refs now are for the most part redundant to Estrin's 1971 analyses. I didn't re-include 8.d5 line because of Chesscafe 9...Kg8!! (Maric's move). Lastly, Estrin gives 4...Nxe4? (while Harding gave 4...Nxe4?!). IHTS (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

> Other sixth moves have scored very badly for White. This doesn't seem true. Stockfish recommends 5. Nxf7 with more than +2 advantage for white. The defense from black attack is not even that hard and after dust settles white have at least extra exchange and a pawn (or even a full rook if black doesn't play correctly themselves). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.213.13.93 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's risky but not unplayable. Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The text was "Black is practically forced to give up a pawn for the initiative". Nothing wrong with that since word "practically" doesn't mean absolutely or necessarily. The text after your edit, "usually forced" doesn't make sense, perhaps you meant "Black usually gives up a pawn [...]", which is ok. But am reverting. --IHTS (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for your reply. Jishiboka1 (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised by warring to change "this attack on f7 practically wins a pawn by force" to claims that are incorrect or nonsensical. My real surprise is that the dispute doesn't seem to be over the chess which I think everyone agrees on. The problem is English language comprehension, and "practically forced" and "usually forced" are not the same. As Ihardlythinkso points out, "usually forced" makes no sense in chess, but "practically forced" can be true if there's a theoretical possibility that is almost never chosen.

The sentence was added to the page in an IP edit in 2005 and has remained undisturbed until recently. I'm pretty sure I was the IP editor who put it in as at that time I was a few months away from creating an account and the edit also shows my characteristic inability to correctly spell "Guicco" [sic]. Although unfortunately I rarely cited sources back then, almost every one of my edits was taken very closely from some chess book. I can't be sure 17 years later, but this is what a couple sources say about 4.Ng5. Horrowitz (1964) "Chess Openings Theory and Practice", p. 203, "The attack on Black's KB2 by 4 N-N5 wins a Pawn almost by force". Korn (1982) "MCO 12", p. 84, "The crucial lines spring from 4 N-N5 .... Black is hard pressed to justify the virtually forced loss of a pawn." And a source not available in 2005: Van der Sterren (2011) "FCO", p. 306, "In fact 3 Nf6 is a pawn sacrifice and 4 Ng5 is the way to accept it". Quale (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Jishiboka1, please stop with the edit warring over this point. We've been very tolerant, but if you persist I will ask an admin for sanctions pursuant to WP:3RR. Quale (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Black will generally avoid Nxd5?! but it regains the pawn, but it is very risky (allows Nxf7!? Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC), also then remove the usually gives up and change back to practically...

I think for e4 e5 nf3 nc6 bc4 nf6 ng5 d5 exd5 nxd5?!, Nxf7 should have a !?, as it is a sacrifice of a knight, and several sources state that (lichess.org's opening explorer or the book chess openings for kids) Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

After Ng5 d5 exd5 Nxd5? The computer deems d4! as a mistake and says that if you play d4? you missed a brilliant move, it says that Nxf7!! is brilliant. Sources:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/pgn/5cxgQaqPrN?tab=review (d4?)

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/81262329958?tab=review (Nxf7!!) Edit of edit (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the article. I'm not sure why you are bringing it up here. Perhaps you mistakenly think article talk pages are forums for general discussion? --Yamla (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

my suggestion for annotations is associated with the 2 knights defense with Ng5 and the engine is in agreement. Edit of edit (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are to be used to improve the article. You haven't said anything intended to improve the article, just reiterated material that's already covered therein. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have several books on the Two Knights, it used to be one of my favourite openings with both sides, and not a single one of them calls 5...Na5 the "Polerio Defence". 5...Na5 is just 5...Na5, the main line against 4.Ng5. It has no standard name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you know how the wrong name originated? It seems like a less intuitive to understand mistake than the one with Fried Liver Attack. I see an example of a source without Polerio at ; I wonder if it's a more reliable source than others? Dayshade (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I know this page isn't for chatting but for discussing improvements to the article, but Ulvestad's analysis in the Chess Review article was very unimpressive. After 6.Bf1 (to which he gives an unwarranted question mark) 6...h6 how can he not even consider the obvious 7.Nxf7? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Skill issue. Lol Dayshade (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems that Wikipedia editors insist on gradually making everything worse over time. Consider the text describing 4.Ng5.

20 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&oldid=19488186 it said this

Siegbert Tarrasch called 4.Ng5 a "duffer's move" (ein richtiger Stümperzug) and Panov called it "primitive", but this attack on f7 practically wins a pawn by force. Despite Tarrasch's criticism, many players consider 4.Ng5 to be White's best chance for an advantage and it has been played by World Champions Steinitz, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, and Anand.

In 2021, there was this bad edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&direction=next&oldid=1026935952. It certainly can't be said to have ruined the text, but it did make it worse by a step.

German master Siegbert Tarrasch called 4.Ng5 a "real duffer's move" (ein richtiger Stümperzug) and Soviet opening theorist Vasily Panov called it "primitive", but this attack on f7 practically wins a pawn by force. Despite Tarrasch's criticism, 4.Ng5 has remained a popular choice for White at all levels.

Once you start downhill often you keep rolling. More recently it got still worse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&diff=prev&oldid=1299786520

This move creates a double attack on Black's pawn on f7, as White's bishop on c4 also targets the square. If the knight were to capture the pawn, this would fork Black's queen and rook. If the bishop were to do the same, Black's king would be forced to move and lose castling rights. Unlike in the Giuoco Piano, Black cannot castle immediately to deal with the threat due to the undeveloped bishop on f8. Although the move practically wins a pawn by force, Black can gain compensation with precise play through quick development and gaining tempo by forcing White's pieces to retreat. German master Siegbert Tarrasch called 4.Ng5 "a real duffer's move" (ein richtiger Stümperzug) and Soviet opening theorist Vasily Panov called it "primitive", but despite such criticism, 4.Ng5 has remained a popular choice for White at all levels, with only 4.d3 being more common for White. In the modern day, the name "Fried Liver Attack" is often used to refer informally to all lines beginning with 4.Ng5, but traditionally the name refers only to the line 4...d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Nxf7, where White sacrifices a knight.

This edit claims that 4.Ng5 weakens Black's king. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&diff=next&oldid=1299791507. That's a strange claim because usually a move by Black might weaken Black's king. How would a move by White weaken Black's king?

I think it's OK to point out that 4.Ng5 attacks f7 twice, but the new text belabors the point unnecessarily and makes a strange claim about weakening Black's king when generally it is White who comes under attack.

Uggh. Sometimes I hate editing here. Quale (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Does my new edit address your concerns? By "weakens the position of Black's king", I had been attempting to convey that Black's king is in a bit of a precarious spot, but I think you're right that it should be removed. And sorry I make you hate editing here. :( I do value your feedback. Although, I'm not sure why finding something to correct and fixing it/proposing to fix it like you've done here makes you hate editing? I thought that was kind of the norm for editing Wikipedia haha. Dayshade (talk) 05:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess the way I think of it is that in the process of making Wikipedia better, there will be some errors that will later have to be corrected. Sort of like a two steps forward, one step back thing, but then you can just fix whatever the step back is once it's found. Dayshade (talk) 05:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, it looks like more subsections need to be added to the 4.Ng5 section. Can the main line can be considered 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5, or does it strictly end with 5.exd5? I see at that 5...Na5 has no name, which seems to suggest it could be called the main line. Dayshade (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I found a PDF of Jan Pinski's "The Two Knights Defence", and it does refer to 5.exd5 Na5 as "Main Line" (it also says "Traxler Gambit" for 4...Bc5). I wonder if I could contact chess.com to get their source for the name "Polerio Defence", as yeah, still haven't been able to find that name used in any PDFs beyond a note that Polerio was aware of the line. It seems "Blackburne Variation" can be used instead of chess.com's "Polerio, Bishop Check Line" for 5...Na5 6.Bb5, but I wonder if that is verified elsewhere. Dayshade (talk) 07:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with opening and variation names. Not every name that appears on chess.com or lichess needs to appear on Wikipedia, and some of them absolutely shouldn't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I have been gravitating towards your position on this, hence why I've been researching this. An ideal end result would be to be able to have chess.com correct their errors. The limited contact I've had with their support so far seems to suggest it may simply be an error from misreading "Prussian" or "known by Polerio". Dayshade (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Also I would really appreciate if you would try to be more constructive instead of insulting me so much lol. Even though not all variation names listed are valid, we're building reference material here, so I think this is worth looking into. Dayshade (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have so many problematic editing habits that your editing could be considered disruptive. Issues with your editing include:

• Not citing sources, or using poor quality self-published sources. (This includes most of chess.com, as well as 365chess and most other commercial internet chess sites). Reliable sources are not optional; this is a core Wikipedia policy.
• Carrying out original research using opening databases and engines. This is evidenced by the many edits you make saying things like "White most often replies..." and "the game most often continues...". A move's frequency at lichess does not necessarily reflect its theoretical importance and discussing lines in terms of database frequency may lead to moves being given WP:UNDUE weight. Engine use is reflected in statements like "... is rare but playable" (no source of course).
• Making radical changes to the structure and formatting of established articles without obtaining consensus.
• Fixating on opening names, often names which are not commonly used except on chess.com etc, rather than citing assessments of openings by competent writers. "This is known as the Smith Variation". (So what? I don't care what chess.com calls it, I want to know if it's any good or not.)
• Flooding the talk pages and discussions. You don't just reply, you reply and reply and reply, 4, 5, 6 times, usually without indenting. The effect of this is that nobody wants to enter into a discussion with your WP:WALLOFTEXT, disrupting the consensus-building process. This could be considered WP:BLUDGEONING.
• Marking as "minor" edits that clearly are not.

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but your editing still creates problems. I think you have a competence issue. The majority of your edits do not improve the encyclopedia, they just create work for the more established editors. At Wikipedia we are used to IP editors and new accounts coming along and making poor edits that need to be reverted, but you're certainly the most persistent I've come across. I know this is a tough thing to say but I think it is justified. I think you would benefit from WP:MENTORSHIP; maybe even try the Wikipedia WP:ADVENTURE game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry that not doing all of my talk page replies in a single edit is so annoying to you. And at least good ole Levivich thought my points had some merit. But seriously, it feels like barely anyone wants to engage in discussions. All you have to do is scroll up to find endless ignored talk page discussions. As I explained to Quale: WP:PRIMARY says "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I would argue based on this that it is not problematic to use a database (effectively a primary source, right?) to make descriptive statements about the existence of lines (not win ratio). Also, WP:PUBLISHED seems to leave open a database published by chess.com or chessgames.com and the like as an acceptably reliable source in the way I read it. Like I've said before, there are also practical issues (datedness, bias, etc) with focusing on books, even though I've now found a lot of PDFs and have begun trying to integrate sources. But what do I know? I'm just a worthless piece of garbage who ought to try the WP:ADVENTURE game. Dayshade (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that "discussing lines in terms of database frequency may lead to moves being given WP:UNDUE weight." If a line is objectively frequent, it is notable, and it's not like any other lines are not being mentioned. It shouldn't matter if the line was already known and mentioned in a book 30 years ago or not. The minor edits thing is no longer an issue and even if it were, it seems like such a silly thing to "fixate" on. Complaining about "fixating" on opening names is also absurd. We are building reference material. Complaining about the amount I talk (???) when I'm actively trying to address your complaints is also absurd. Nothing I am doing is disrupting the consensus building process, as I am actively trying to seek your input. If anything, you are, by endlessly insulting me, and you ignore a lot of my questions that are aimed to better understand your point of view. And are you aware that there are pages like Semi-Slav Defense that cite even less sources than I have? I would think chess books are barely more reviewed than a "self published" source is as publishers are not chess experts, and such books cannot be corrected after being published unlike an online source and are biased with the view of a particular person. I have had to remove several false cited claims from outdated books. I don't know... I'd just really like to see more engagement with what I'm saying, e.g. providing a rebuttal for my counterarguments. Dayshade (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I could remove "... is rare but playable" type sentences but I honestly just disagree with WP:CHESSENGINE being applied to this extent (I think minimal use along the lines of these types of sentences is fine, and a computer program than can trounce even Magnus Carlsen I think should be considered more reliable than 30 year old books (and again, I'm trying to include more old books now)), and it is a redirect you created yourself. Was there an actual discussion with a consensus you could link me to for that? Dayshade (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just gotten back from a bar when I started responding last night; please ignore my weird self deprecation and so on. Please link me to some sections of other opening articles that you think have an exemplary citation density. It seems names of lines are usually not cited on other articles. I am going to be focusing on going back and adding more citations for non obvious/non instantly verifiable via google claims in work rather than new content, although it will not be purely limited to books. Dayshade (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop attacking for me for having a different communication style than you and for making "radical" changes that you are fully free to revert and discuss, and which I have gone to extreme lengths to discuss with you despite your endless verbal abuse. I feel pretty offended that you are accusing me of "bludgeoning" and I think I've done absolutely nothing of the sort. It personally rather feels as though you are more trying to silence dissent. Dayshade (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also I just noticed the revision - I thought this was the type of primary source citation you wanted to avoid? Dayshade (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Seriously, how is anyone supposed to reply to all this? This is the very definition of WP:BLUDGEON. And no, you cannot use engines or databases as "reliable sources". You're allowed to do original research, you're even allowed to discuss your original research on talk pages etc, but you can't use it as a basis for main space edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Idk, I really don't think they're so long that you can be justified in just dismissing me for talking too much. Let's take a look at the policy. (1) "Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. Continuing to argue the same point doesn't reinforce it and can be annoying to others, appearing combative rather than consensus seeking." - I have repeated some arguments (such as about datedness), but so have you at least as much, and the fact they are not being/barely being acknowledged is motivating my repeating. (2) "When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious [biased] editing." - Think of my repeat replies as edits. This has no intent of owning and is more a result of my ADHD/continued thinking after posting. I think a reasonable person would struggle to see my editing as biased given how much feedback I seek and so on. (3) "It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own." - I am not doing this any more than you are and I actively concede points, change my views, and so on. Also, these are basically three person discussions, and it seems that the policy is more referring to larger discussions from the way I read it. Even if it wasn't, I think a reasonable person would see my comments are intended to build consensus and get clarification. Sorry that a few paragraphs instead of one or two feels like too much for you to reply to. And can you link to the consensus discussions about databases (used for establishing frequency, not win ratio, the one Quale has linked me seems to largely refer to win ratio) and engines? Dayshade (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I get a lot of WP:IDHT from you. Databases and engines may not be used as sources. You are taking raw data and drawing your own conclusions from it. This is a simple common sense reading of the rules against original research. It is exhausting to explain this to you over and over. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

No, you just are ignoring my follow up questions. Dayshade (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Which of your 50,000 follow up questions do you want me to answer? This is the problem when you reply with massive walls of text. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)