User talk:Quale

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent move of this article.

Articles with prior RM history cannot be bold moved; a discussion is necessary. See WP:PCM. 162 etc. (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Thanks for your note. I understand why Wikipedia would have that guidance, although personally I think it's a poor. The previous move request on that page was rightly rejected because it was awful, but this rule causes lingering damage because it makes it so much harder to move the page to a better name. And there are several better names available. The current name isn't unconscionably awful but it's only the third or fourth best title for the page. There was no controversy over that terrible move request -- it was flatly rejected, but now it hurts the article potentially for a long time. Quale (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I participated in that discussion, and am not particularly satisfied with the outcome, but that is the consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I replied on the King's Gambit talk page. Dayshade (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion since I kept all that visible text in the article, just expanded that section. My comment was just a bemused side thought, perhaps not appropriate in a summary. I only object to overemphasis of such opinions, not their presence in general. Let me know if anything else is concerning. Dayshade (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Like, if it had been a truly bad move, having the sole text under that header being something like that would be fine, but 4.Ng5 is very playable, and it just seemed jarring for that sole sentence right at the beginning in the first section to just be some grandmaster calling it shit when that isn't anywhere near a universal opinion. I'd prefer more generally agreed things, rather than one or two people's personal opinions, to be emphasized in articles. Dayshade (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any other feedback on articles I've made to chess articles? Dayshade (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I saw your post on the WikiProject discussion page. A lot of my unsourced additions derive from statistics on the chess.com and lichess databases, articles on chess.com or other sites, videos or presentations by grandmasters, and the ECO database (eg ). Since a lot of my unsourced additions are related to notable lines I think had been omitted in the sourced texts (which are often outdated, while objective stats through 2025 are available online), to what extent should I be sourcing lines not mentioned in the sourced material with a link to the sourceforge link, chess.com database, etc? And is there anything else you would like to advise? Dayshade (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Dayshade: I'm sorry to essentially ghost you for a while. I haven't been editing much recently, although I have done a little. The first rule to follow is to always know what effect your edit will have on the article, and this is especially important when reverting. This is really an area I should improve rather than you because I didn't do that in my July 9 revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&diff=prev&oldid=1299725234. I've been here for a while and I shouldn't make that mistake.

I think your negative reaction to Tarrasch's opinion of 4.Ng5 is a little strong. Tarrasch had many outspoken opinions about chess and not all of them are shared today (or sometimes even in his time), but his views are still of interest in the history of chess. Although I don't think anyone today would call 4.Ng5 a duffer's move, it's still true that some GMs prefer 4.d4 probably because they feel that allowing Black to gambit is playing into his hands and giving Black the kind of game they want. The comment from Tarrasch is a paraphrase of the explanatory text that MCO uses to introduce the Two Knights.

My first suggestion is to learn some of the technical expectations for using Talk pages to collaborate. You're familiar with signing your comments, but you should also start new sections when introducing a new talk topic. See WP:TP. I created a section for your comments here which were jammed into a section about a completely unrelated subject. The second technical bit about using Talk pages is that replies should be indented as described at WP:TP. The third technical thing is that talk page edits should be signed, but you already do that.

Starting to edit Wikipedia in 2025 is a somewhat daunting task because Wikipedia has nearly 25 years of rules and guidelines. I think these are mostly necessary to maintain and grow a high quality encyclopedia, but really it's a lot to try to navigate as a new editor. It was easier to start 20 or even 15 years ago when there weren't as many rules because you could learn and adapt as things got more complex. For example, the thought of trying to comprehend the entirety of the Manual of Style and it's many subpages fills me with dread. (I do use the MOS occasionally to look up specific points.) If you plan to do more than casual editing then I think instead it is important to at least quickly review the Core Content Policies, namely WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.

The WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View policy is very important, but in chess it is of greater importance for Category:Chess people biographies than Category:Chess openings.

The WP:V verifiability policy requires citations for claims in articles. This is key, and the key to understanding the application of WP:V is to understand what Wikipedia considers to be a WP:RS reliable source.

Like the other core content policies, WP:NOR no original research applies to all articles, but in combination with WP:V it has a particular effect on the sources that can be used and the claims that can be made in chess opening articles. Online chess databases are very tempting to cite in chess opening articles, but probably they can't be used as a reliable source to support any claims. I explained why online databases are generally not reliable sources on WT:CHESS in 2019 WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive_35#Online chess databases as sources. Note though that some chess editors do not agree with my opinion that online databases are not reliable sources.

I hope this doesn't put you off editing. I think you have the chess knowledge to improve chess articles and the chess articles have plenty of room for improvement. Quale (talk) 04:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the MCO (not sure which edition, isn't the most recent like 2007 or something?) is outdated? 4.Ng5 still has proponents and decent play rate, particularly in shorter time controls but even in classical, so maybe there was a revival in the last 20 years? But yeah, it's still in the article. Just expanded it a bit. And ok, I didn't realize the indent thing was a rule, cause the non-wikimedia wikis I used to edit a long time ago went for the convention where you only indent if you're making a new reply above the most recent reply (either in the main thread, or within another thread to create a second level indent, but I can switch lol. And I'll try to make more sections.

No, I welcome such advice, although sometimes I feel I'm wishing to get more advice on non-stylistic matters but I guess if I follow the style it'll irk people less. Anyway, what do you make of these possible types sources (also we can continue this at Talk:King's Gambit if you want, but here is fine too):

1. Videos/lectures by GMs such as this:

2. Chess.com articles such as this:

3. ECO/Name databases (I think this is good, but MaxBrowne2 doesn't think so. Also don't know if citing ECO/a name database every single time a new opening name term is introduced is necessary, since there are already super easy ways to find it)

Also maybe there are other PDFs around online of some recent books? But I'm honestly concerned about negative impacts of relying on books published over 10 and especially over 20 years ago since opening theory has continued to evolve, particularly with the rise of engines. I had also seen eg on the Sicilian page 25 year old statistics used to make a point in the article. So this makes me think opening database citations, as a simple objective observation of a primary source, should be ok to cite, would be curious if you have more thoughts. Plus all the lines (except maybe the eg "6...Bb4 is an alternative" sentences, which is from observing the database) I have added have been discussed by grandmasters/masters, so could add more citations via that.

Regardless, since these lines are common, I suspect a respectable book would to verify my additions if anyone else is willing to take a look through physical opening books they have, since I know some people have them (eg for King's Gambit). And there is an element of original research in that I am also looking at the lines in Stockfish myself, but this is more just to verify what I am seeing in other sources and help detect any mistakes I am making. And let me know if you have any other source ideas/other ideas in general. Dayshade (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstand. All editions of MCO are outdated (the most recent edition is the 16th published in 2008 as you can learn at Modern Chess Openings), but the Tarrasch quote will never be outdated. Tarrasch is long dead and his opinion of 4.Ng5 or anything else can never change now. MCO uses that quote to report Tarrasch's opinion, not to pronounce the absolute truth about how God or a 3800-rated program might play chess. MCO was not agreeing with Tarrasch, it was simply reporting one historical view and it very explicitly says that other masters did not share Tarrasch's assessment. That's right there in the text in the Two Knights article so I don't understand why it bugs you so much. ("Grandmaster calls it shit" -- check your language and settle down a bit.) You seem to have a very narrow view of what might be in an article about a chess opening. You might not care what Siegbert Tarrasch thought about chess and I'm not going to tell you you should. (I'm not sure you know who he was.) In any case, it is of encyclopedic interest.

YouTube is often problematic because it doesn't always qualify as a WP:RS in Wikipedia's definition of "reliable source". The problem is that YouTube is self-published, and WP:RSSELF sources are generally not considered OK. I think there can be exceptions when the author is recognized as an expert. A GM might qualify as an expert on chess and perhaps self-publications by a GM could be allowed as a reference for some claims. We haven't really worked that out in detail.

Because of Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources, getting up to date opening lines referenced adequately can be a challenge. There are a wealth of chess opening books, but they are generally older. There's a lot online, but WP:RS can make those sources difficult or impossible to use in Wikipedia. Keep in mind however that WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a game guide. Chess opening articles should teach the reader about the opening but they are not intended to teach the user how to play the opening. Wikipedia isn't and can't become a repertoire guide. Quale (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree much. I just wanted it to not be the sole sentence under that header, not remove it. I think selective use of quotes gives a biased read in my opinion, which is why I wanted to expand the section. Like it was honestly shocking how many negative quotes about perfectly playable lines while gushing over the Sicilian there was. Also a similar thing happened at Bishop's Gambit. 3...Qh4+ was reported as no longer being common when it demonstrably is. So I wonder if both of these evaluations relate to some Romantic lines poorly regarded in the 20th century being revived in the 21st due to engines, like 4.Ng5? I don't know.

I'd definitely push for a GM qualifying as an expert, cause chess books (even if they weren't outdated) aren't peer reviewed to the same extent a scientific paper might be (unless I'm mistaken). Some of the books are by masters or very obscure GMs as well. I'm still just skeptical of the reliability of the printed opening books in comparison to recent online sources published by a GM (or even master). If we want to remain accurate we will have to include some more modern online sources, I think.

I don't think what I'm writing is guidelike, although I think the line is really thin here since possible lines, their regard, and common moves later within the lines would kind be what you need to get out of an opening guide, though I've never read a physical opening book. There are no recommendations in what I'm writing, if that's what you mean.

Honestly I'm curious what you think of a Stockfish eval. I'm inclined to think simply observing the evaluation of the best chess player in the world at high depth could be acceptably reliable. And do you have an opinion on listing the names of known names of lines (either of an ECO code or within one, eg citing ) in a relevant article (eg see King's Gambit, Classical Variation)? MaxBrowne2 seems critical, but I prefer it myself.

Also would you say you're fairly strongly against citing opening databases? Or more mixed feelings? It seems you were more against including win/loss percentages from a database, rather than simply establishing that a line is frequent. Dayshade (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

"I just wanted it to not be the sole sentence under that header, not remove it." It was never the sole sentence under any header. The text in that section used to be slightly better but was made a little worse in 2021. The introductory text to the section was very short and I think it's OK to add the explanation that 4.Ng5 attacks f7 twice, but the current text belabors the point unnecessarily.

Stockfish can't be used as it is not a WP:RS. See WP:CHESSENGINE. The way to get engine analysis into an article is to find a reliable source that quotes the engine analysis and cite that reliable source.

Databases are in the same boat, not a WP:RS. See WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive_35#Online chess databases as sources for my thoughts on that.

There is a place where you could use databases and engines - Wikibooks:Chess Opening Theory. The rules are much more relaxed in Wikibooks and I think it would accommodate all or nearly all the content that interests you. Quale (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I saw your post on Two Knights and made a new revision I hope will be satisfactory. I checked and there were originally two sentences rather than one, yes, but it was still very short. The old revision definitely was not my best work. I really do not wish to be making you and Max feel like you hate editing here which is why I've been trying to communicate so much and revise based on criticism, but idk if it's just annoying instead. And yes, I think you linked that to me before, but I must say again that it looks like you're primarily criticizing their use to establish win ratio and so on, but I'm only looking at them specifically to establish that lines exist (ie deserve a sentence). 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. I actually have started editing that Wikibook, yeah, since it seems to have some big problems and it's directly transcluded on a lichess page (e.g. ) and it has some serious tone/style issues imo. Dayshade (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to talk about your edits and I'm sure all your work is in good faith. It's easy to wonder why every edit wouldn't be in good faith, but a little time spent editing Wikipedia makes it difficult sometimes to not see many edits as pushing point of view (WP:NPOV) or self-promotional (WP:COI) or as vandalism, so Wikipedia editors are reminded WP:AGF. That isn't an issue with your edits.

The primary concern is WP:V verifiability. The purpose of citing sources is to allow claims to be verified. WP:RS requires reliable sources, and one of the key requirements for a reliable source is that it can be used to verify claims. I'm pretty sure I explained this in the WT:CHESS archived discussion I linked above, but chess engines and chess databases can't be used as sources because they do not provide verifiability. If an article says, "in the foochess.com database, in this position White chose 13.f8=N 34.7% of the time", how is someone going to verify that claim next year or even next month? The games in the database may change at any time so the number will likely not remain static. What happens if a week later I try to check the source and my database search shows 34.2%? The foochess.com database might go offline and then the claim could never be verified by anyone. We can use that kind of claim tied to a database if it is cited in a WP:RS, so for example if Larry Kaufman writes something about database numbers we can use those numbers and cite his book. Wikibooks has different rules. I don't know what those are, but you will have more freedom there. Quale (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, wasn't planning to put any percents or anything. Just using it to establish that a line exists (like simply "6...Bb5 is also seen" and the like). There's a good amount of citations like this that already exist in other articles. Also, do you know of any specific opening articles/sections of articles that you think are exemplary in terms of style and citation density? I know a lot of claims don't need an inline citation (seems if something can be easily verified with google like a name or possible following moves, it's ok to leave without an inline, ie if not "likely to be challenged" as WP:V says), so are there any specific types of claims (besides quotes as WP:V says) you think must have an inline versus those that don't? And thanks. I know it's exhausting talking to me sometimes haha given how much I ask. But presumably it's better than poor communication. Dayshade (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Also I know you and Max have been pushing me to keep discussions more to article talk rather than user talk pages, but I'm still very wary of nobody responding to such discussions as that was a big issue for me in the past. I guess if you guys are monitoring my contribs (lol) this might cease to be an issue though. Also do you have any more thoughts on Talk:King's Gambit? Since the discussion died out and my points weren't rebutted and Levivich endorsed my proposal (you also seem to be leaning pro), I was going to go ahead with it soon, but I know Max opposes the split. I did find a citation for "Classical Variation" as the name which should address some of Max's concerns. Dayshade (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not always the most responsive either on article talk or even my user talk, but I understand the frustration of trying to engage other editors and being met with silence. I hadn't paid close attention to KG talk lately. I'll go take a look. Quale (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Would be interested to know if you have any input at Talk:Scotch Game, Talk:Vienna Game, and Talk:Evans Gambit. No worries if not. Dayshade (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I had been following it casually but I didn't fully understand the concerns. Subsequently you and Max clarified it at least on the Scotch so I have commented on Talk:Scotch Game. I'll look at the others to see if I have any thoughts worth sharing. Quale (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Kenyan chess players indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Quale, could you please peer review the page? King (chess) - Wikipedia Spectralarrow (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm new to Wikipedia editing. You answered one of my questions there, clarified what I was confused about prior, and so I edited out tahat question, and then edited out your answer since it wouldnt make sense if I kept that there without the question, and then the unresolved questions remain there. I didn't know that's not how it works on wikipedia. Was that unethical? If so I'm really sorry I'm really just new to this talk/edit thing ~2025-43272-20 (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics or statistics. The use of "above and below" also goes against our writing style. I think there might be an argument for including some more notable and widely circulated examples, but as it stands ,the article is just a giant list of WP:TRIVIA and should be at least severely pruned. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

ETA: A good chunk of it was also sourced only to fansites, or not sourced at all. Unsourced information, especially about people, may be challenged and removed at any time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer - You see trivia everywhere in WP and I'm sure that you are often correct, but you aren't correct in this case. You are also wrong to categorize some of the sources as "fan sites". Tim Krabbé is a recognized expert on chess and a noted chess writer. Quale (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Quale: Wikipedia is still a list of random statistics. What makes this different than listing a thousand actors' Bacon numbers or any other random arbitrary statistic? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you think this list should be kept. As I said, Wikipedia is not a directory of random statistics, and most of the content is still not sourced at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer Sorry, my initial comment wasn't really appropriately focused on this specific article. If the article had a thousand Morphy numbers I would agree that that was excessive, but I think the number is an order of magnitude less. I agree that sourcing is needed, and looking at the lists I see the unfortunately ironic situation that some names that I think could be removed from the list (chess officials and minor masters) are more likely to be cited to a specific game than others with greater claim to be listed such as some world champions. I'll ask at WT:CHESS to see if other editors are interested in trimming the lists and improving sourcing or perhaps in removing them altogether. You might think that the WP:CHESS would be biased in favor of keeping everything and that might be the case, but in my experience some chess editors are somewhat deletionist and selective in what chess topics they think should be in the encyclopedia and in how much coverage they deserve. Quale (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No rush, but maybe this would be an easier-to-answer version of my question. Which look best to you below?

• 1.a4 a5 2.b4 b5: Main line
  • 3.c4: Subheader variation
• 2...c5: Side line
• 2...d5: Other variation
• 2.c4: Earlier branching variation
• 1...b5: Even earlier branching variation

or

• 1.a4 a5 2.b4 b5: Main line
  • 3.c4: Subheader variation
• 1.a4 a5 2.b4 c5: Side line
• 1.a4 a5 2.b4 d5: Other variation
• 1.a4 a5 2.c4: Earlier branching variation
• 1.a4 b5: Even earlier branching variation

And then, particularly for the first version, do you think it would be good to have, between a header and its prose, the PGN that e.g. Budapest Gambit#Rubinstein Variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 does? Dayshade (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And, is the illogicality you were referring to the use of the first styling itself, or the entire use of deep-sideline-to-shallow ordering instead of the reverse or just doing the overnesting, or my decisions on what to group, or that there were too many third levels of varying branch depth under one second level, etc? Dayshade (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

So is responding to this too cruel and unusual for you to do so? Lol. Dayshade (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

There are two concerns with recent (although here recent extends back 6 months or more) edits to chess opening articles. WP:CITE and organization or logical structure. The WP:CITE / WP:RS / WP:OR worries are paramount as these are Wikipedia policy and apply to all articles. You should probably direct your attention to addressing inline cites for your edits first. Problems with ramshackle disorganization of the articles can normally be addressed by moving things around to put them back into a sensible order. It annoys editors when a well-structured article is scrambled because it makes more work to straighten it out again, but normally it is fixable.

I've already tried to explain this at least twice, but in general headers at the same level should address alternatives at the same point in the game. For example, I think Nimzo-Indian Defence is well organized. The top level sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 all address White move 4 alternatives. Second level headers 2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.7 address Black move 4 alternatives after 4.e3. (There is a small deviation as 2.1 and 2.2 both cover 4...0-0, but this seems forgivable here as it allows coverage of the main line early and there are many important lines after 4...0-0.)

There is no magic formula that you can use to completely scramble existing stable chess opening articles to your whims that is going to make everyone happy. You should consider that if many editors preferred your organizational ideas they might have made the edits to the articles themselves in the years before you arrived. I think you should leave the organization of the articles alone and focus on smaller improvements within the existing structure, and provide inline citations for your changes. In fact I've suggested exactly that one or several times before, but since you don't seem to be interested in doing that I'm not going to suggest it to you again. Quale (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

How do my (cited) changes to Petrov's Defence look? (for example - should I make it a priority to add page numbers to the cites, or is it fine as is, or are there other problems with the newest version of that article that I'm not aware of?) (And does the organization look okay?)

Secondly, for openings that have sidelines branching off at many different depth levels, where a Nimzo style approach isn't as workable (Two Knights Defense is a good example (and actually, so is the Steinitz Variation at Petrov, but I can change e.g. "Murey Variation: 4...Nc6" to "Murey Variation: 3...Nxe4 4.Bd3 Nc6" for example if you would like - basically equivalent to the "4...b6 5.Bd3 Bb7" subheader at Nimzo), because you have the main going to 8.Bd3/8.Be2/8.Qf3 choice, but 6...Bd7, 6.d3, 5...Nd4, 5...b5, 5...Nxd5 (these 3 can be grouped, as is being done), etc would result in ugly overnesting for the main lines if the "___th move alternatives" section strategy or something similar wasn't used), do you have any preferred strategy? Dayshade (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I did change Nimzo-Indian a moderate amount (mostly adding subheaders) over a few days a few days ago - I'm guessing you are okay with those organizational changes, then? Certain downgrades (ie poor elements of articles that survived edits from me) that were not actually by me have been attributed to me accidentally btw, and certain upgrades have been assumed to not be by me, I feel. Not that it really matters, but I definitely think some positive changes by me are being overlooked. Dayshade (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that Two Knights Defense is different than the Nimzo-Indian. Before you took a hatchet to it it looked like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two_Knights_Defense&oldid=1273758027. That organization is as clear as Nimzo-Indian was.

"I'm guessing you are okay with those organizational changes, then?" No, I'm not OK. Please stop with your incessant drastic reorganizations of chess openings articles. I've asked you to stop so many times and you won't do it, so clearly nothing I say really makes any difference to you. You claim to want input, but when experienced chess editors give you requests you don't like you simply ignore them. I think people are losing patience with you, I know I am. Quale (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess just stopping is the one thing I really don't want to do, yeah, because I find doing this editing really enjoyable and overall good for my mental health and I really feel like I'm making net positive changes... but I want to make the changes as not annoying as possible. Sounds like you prefer to reduce the number of headers, then? I thought you were talking about liking the current version of Nimzo-Indian, after my (moderate) changes, so now I'm pretty confused. Again feels like positive changes I've made, and how much I've improved from last summer, are being overlooked. For example, I've added tons of diagrams, which readers almost universally say they want to see more of in articles. That main line section in Two Knights takes up my whole screen (and inelegantly switches to shallow sideline-first ordering while the subheader structure of the article uses main line-first ordering) and I don't see how is it harmed by splitting into appropriate subsections and adding more diagrams and detail (such as the 8.Bd3 line, which is now the main line of 4.Ng5). Also, did you have any thoughts on my new section over at Talk:Smith–Morra Gambit? Dayshade (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)