Talk:Modern Chess Openings

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Chess Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference works (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles

Work in progress[edit]

I started this page with information I could find on the internet. It is incomplete and sometimes contradictory, and some of it may be wrong. Please correct anything you can. Also, more needs to be said about this important book. Bubba73 (talk), 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections for de Firmian[edit]

de Firmian admitts some subsections authored by others. The pages in reference to the English are an example of this. Should it be noted? --Mokru 02:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First player of master strength ?[edit]

The article, before I revised it, referred to Fine as being the first player of master strength to edit MCO. However, Griffith's Wikipedia entry says Griffith won the 1912 British championship, the only one he entered. That would seem to make him at least "master strength" as that term is understood today (I'm a USCF master, and I haven't won any national championships . . .). So I changed "master" to "grandmaster." (Fine was awarded that title in 1950, when FIDE began awarding titles). There is no reason to think that Griffith, White, Sergeant, etc. were of grandmaster strength. All were Brits, and Tony Miles (1976) is accepted as being the first English grandmaster (apart from the German-born Jacques Mieses). Undoubtedly Staunton, Blackburne and perhaps a few other Brits (e.g. Bird) would be considered GM's by today's standards, but there's no reason to think that Griffith, White et al. would be. Krakatoa 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me. I thought a bit about that statement in the past, and your rewrite is probably best. Some of the original British editors were strong players, but none were grandmaster class. Quale 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krakatoa, do you mean to say that when you saw "master" first you decided to change it to "grandmaster", but then thought a bit more and decided there was "no reason to think" they were of grandmaster strength and changed it back? Or maybe it was a different person who wrote the next part of that? Anonywiki (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. The article originally referred to Fine as being the first "master" strength player to edit ECO. Since Griffith seemed to be of master strength, this statement struck me as being probably wrong. Fine was a grandmaster (indeed a strong contender for the world championship), and none of the prior editors had been grandmasters or of grandmaster strength, so I changed "master" to "grandmaster". Krakatoa (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the grandmaster wording. That is a distortion of it's previous wording. Does anyone have the original source for this the text. Anyway, it is a bit of an assumption to say that no Brit prior to Tony Miles was of grandmaster strength. There is a whole host of reasons why they could be grandmaster strength but not able to get the title. In fact, we have the Jonathan Penrose article labelled as an Grandmaster. SunCreator (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Fine was the first one of master strength is wrong if one of the earlier ones was of master strength. AFAIK, none of the earlier ones were of GM strength. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chessmetrics gives Henry Ernest Atkins a peek Elo rating of 2702. SunCreator (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Atkins only wrote the introduction. Chessmetrics doesn't list Griffiths. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rating of Henry Ernest Atkins says to me there where Brits prior to Tony Miles of grandmaster strength. SunCreator (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not the point. The point is whether or not any of the editors or writers of MCO were grandmaster strength. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we simply don't know if they were of grandmaster strength. So we can't say either way; besides it would be WP:OR 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Griffith was probably the best of them and he isn't even listed in ChessMetrics. At least Fine was the first who got the GM title. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is pretty silly. I will modify the text to make note of the achievements of Griffith and Fine (as well as Evans and DeFirmian), without raising unanswerable questions about grandmasterness. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Openings the Easy Way[edit]

Should we mention Chess Openings the Easy Way, 2003, which was based on MCO-14? Bubba73 (talk), 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-importance[edit]

I have assessed the importance as Mid-importance, because:

The claim in the article that this book is the most popular English language opening reference is not sourced, so I have to assume it is wrong.
I have not been able to find an article about what would be the most popular Russian language opening reference, and if it would be rated High-importance. However, I would say that the Russian book would be more important than the English one, given the importance in chess of Russia and works in Russian language. Hence I would tend to think this could be a case of bias.

SyG (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim might be unsourced, but it is almost self-evidently true. ECO is very important, probably more important than MCO, but uses symbols, not words, so it's not "English language". In English, there is currently no competition. Batsford Chess Openings had only two editions, the latter in 1989, so it's hopelessly out of date. Nunn's Chess Openings is a good book, but has had only one edition (1999). Unless it's revised, MCO is the only (English-language) game in town. I also take "most popular English language opening reference" to refer not only to the book's current status, but also to some extent to its historical status (cf. The Guinness Book of World Records - in counting how many copies have been printed, one looks at all editions). Again, given that MCO has been published continually for 97 years and gone through 15 editions, it's the only game in town. In the 20th and 21st centuries (thus excluding Freeborough and Ranken's Chess Openings Ancient and Modern, first edition 1889, third edition 1896, fourth edition 1910 as I recall), no other English-language opening book has lasted even three editions, and Batsford Chess Openings is the only one that comes to mind that's lasted even two. Krakatoa (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCO[edit]

I noticed that MCO does not redirect here, and there isn't even a disambiguation page. Can somebody fix this?

Will do. SunCreator (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There already was a MCO (disambiguation) and it was already listed from the MCO page. So nothing to do. SunCreator (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MCO goes to the Orlando airport, which has a hatnote for the MCO disambiguation page, which does go here. However, I added {{For|Modern Chess Openings|Modern Chess Openings}} as another hatnote, so chess players are not redirected twice. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implication of P. W. Sergeant[edit]

While the sources (Copac and Cleveland) supports the view he was an author in 1932, neither lists him as an author in 1939, although his name is in the "Title details". So I would consider removing him from the authors, beginning in 1939 and onwards. What do you think ? SyG (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title page of the Sixth Edition (1939) calls it: MODERN CHESS OPENINGS By Griffith and White COMPLETELY REVISED By REUBEN FINE UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF R. C. GRIFFITH AND P. W. SERGEANT The title page of the Seventh Edition (1946) calls it: MODERN CHESS OPENINGS (GRIFFITH AND WHITE) Seventh Edition Completely Revised by W. KORN Under the Editorship of R. C. GRIFFITH AND P. W. SERGEANT So I would say "no" to your suggestion. Krakatoa (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P. W. Sergeant's Involvement vel non with Fourth Edition[edit]

The table in the article lists P. W. Sergeant as a co-author of the 1925 Fourth Edition. That is indeed supported by Copac, the cited source. However, I have the book itself and he is not listed on the cover, the title page, or anyplace else that I can see. For example, the cover says, "MODERN CHESS OPENINGS R. C. GRIFFITH and J. H. WHITE Completely Revised by R.C. GRIFFITH and M. E. GOLDSTEIN." The title page is essentially the same. So should Sergeant really be listed? (Incidentally the phrase "vel non" in the section title is a term we lawyer types are fond of, meaning "or not" in Latin.) Krakatoa (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

copak.co.uk links don't work[edit]

The 13 copak.co.uk links don't work. They just take me to the main copak.co.uk page. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the links. One can go to the main copac page and find all the editions that the library system has by typing "Modern Chess Openings" in the appropriate window. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batsford editions[edit]

Both the 14th and 15th editions were also published by Batsford in nearly identical editions to the U.S. edition. The two formats were helpfully reviewed by John Watson, and both versions should be listed in the table. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MCO 12 notation?[edit]

I added reference notes for MCO-11 as Descriptive notation, and MCO-13 as Algebraic notation, because I have both of them on my desk and know for sure, but I do not have MCO-12, so I would appreciate it of someone who has it can add the appropriate footnote. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for not reading the article more carefully, because it answers my question. Do other readers and editors like my footnotes, or should they be cut back or removed? Hasty readers (like me!) may look at the table first, and find the footnotes helpful. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the notation footnotes. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]