Talk:English Defence

Old talk

Online sources for the name of this opening: see [1] and [2] Krakatoa 23:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Defense → English Defence — WP:ENGVAR: With "English" in the title, using the American spelling "Defense" seems incongruous. First reference on talk page also uses "English Defence". I would perform this move myself, but the redirect at English Defence was edited to fix a typo :( Quale 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Quale 15:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Strong Oppose WP:ENGLISH#Include alternatives says that in cases like this (where it is not about any specifical English spelling, that both spellings are fine. WP also says to leave the article at its original spelling if both are acceptable. Since both "Defense" and "Defence" are acceptable in this case and "Defense" is what the article creator used, there is no reason to change it. TJ Spyke 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Is this a joke? Does anybody really think that a chess opening is Britain-related? Joeldl 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I see the nominator's logic, chess openings are not peculiar to one country, and if an American created the article its present location is fine. WP:MOS is fairly clear on this. It might be slightly more open to dispute if there was a history of who invented or popularized the opening (although I'd still oppose the move in such a case). --DeLarge 15:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support nominator makes sense. If it's English it should be in english. 70.55.201.213 03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Comment It seems there is no existing standard for the spelling in chess literature. Both spellings have been used, in articles and even in the titles of books. I don't think the fact that the word "Engish" is in the name is relevant, or should have any bearing. I don't see a compelling reason to move this article, but neither spelling is objectionable. I don't think any "survey" should be proposed here in any case, nor should the pound sign (#) be prefaced before comments to enumerate responses, and the comments should not be grouped by type (support or oppose). zadignose 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2nd)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move this page from "English Defense" to "English Defence", per the discussion below. I understand that the majority of respondents have expressed their opinions in favor of a move. However, the "strong national ties" of a country to a chess opening are in dispute (even if the opening was named after a certain country), and the spirit of the "retain the existing variety" clause in WP:ENGVAR is to reduce the time spent on arguing over article titles - to help us recogni(sz)e that S-vs-C is a superficial thing which does not detract from the quality of the article, and that our energies would be better spent making other improvements. Dekimasu よ! 04:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting this page is moved be "English Defence".

Firstly, I believe named chess openings should be full with Defence/Opening and capitialisation as part of it's name.

So "English Defense" or "English Defense" and not "English" defence. Same with "Ruy Lopez" and not "Ruy" lopez and "Queen Gambit" and not "Queen's" gambit. You can view similar discussion on Queen's Gambit.

Secondly I believe regionally significant articles should keep to the English regional spelling using in that region. So "English Defence" which is named after the English should be in British English and articles about American's for example American player Preston Ware should be in American English.
Thirdly I'd like to point out hypocrisy because this article is "English Defense" because that's how it was created and the consensus was not to change it, while at the same time on the Preston Ware article there is various attempts to change it to American English because it's an American article despite it contents being created using "British English".
Lastly for the sake of clarity and removal of any doubt to a point in the previous discussion I wish to make it clear that "English Defense" is NOT acceptable. ChessCreator (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. "Contents being created" in a regional style different than the article subject explicitly doesn't apply to biographical articles, nor to geographical articles, for reasons that should be obvious, so it isn't hypocricy. All the same the other arguments are sound, and I support moving this page to use British spelling. In fact I proposed it a little less than a year ago as you can see above. The decision to not move it at that time was a mistake. Quale (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, is this not also a 'geographical article' - to me it is, as it was named after English players that originally played it. ChessCreator (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to your third point, the complaint about wanting to use British spelling in the biography of Preston Ware, an American. Quale (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Mildly Support. I created this article, and being an American who customarily spells the word "defense" with an "s," I wrote it that way without thinking about it. However, since it's the "English Defen[s? c?]e" it does make a certain amount of sense to spell the second word the English way. I don't feel very strongly about it (Would I feel more strongly if there were something called the "American Defense" and a Brit created an article entitled "American Defence"? I dunno.). It strikes me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot, but if the consensus is that the spelling should be changed I'm not averse to it. Krakatoa (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's tragic to have the page at the current spelling, but it is a little incongruous. Having St. George Defense was also odd, but that page has been moved. "Cambridge Springs Defence" would also be strange, since it's named for a town in Pennsylvania, and "Marshall Defence" would seem wrong. The real question might be, what would you think about "Fischer Defence"? I think that would look out of place. Remaining pages that might be moved are Barnes Defense and Wade Defense, if the Wade Defense is named after a NZ/UK chess player (our article doesn't say). Quale (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with everything you say. FWIW, The Oxford Companion to Chess has the Marshall Defence and Fischer Defence, but of course that book is a British publication, while Wikipedia is multinational. (Of course, by analogy one could argue, as TJ Spyke and DeLarge did above, that whoever first writes the article gets to choose "Defense" or "Defense.") As for the Wade Defense, if that's a legitimate opening name I would guess that it is named for the late New Zealand IM. However, I can find no mention of the opening in my vast chess library (though I haven't checked every single possible book that might mention it). Krakatoa (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I always thought that Wade Defense was dubious. I had never heard of it, but I still have a lot to learn. We should probably mark the page {{refimprove|date=February 2008}} as the only external link provided doesn't seem to actually say "Wade" anywhere. (The linked page calls it "Queen's Pawn Game (with ...d6)" which is clear and precise, but not a wonderful article title.) I'd strongly prefer a printed reference, as there are a lot of chess web pages that aren't reliable sources. Quale (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I completely agree about the Wade Defense. See my comment on the talk page for that article: I have checked pretty much every imaginable reliable source, and assorted unreliable sources on the Internet, and can't find ANYONE else who calls 1.d4 d6 the Wade Defense. As I explain on the talk page, the only supportable usage appears to be reserving that name for 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Krakatoa (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I know Wade (who is still alive and well, incidentally) has had one or two opening variations named after him-- have you checked the Oxford Companion?Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked at Oxford Companion to Chess but didn't find it. I can check again. Hooper & Whyld aren't definitive as they are missing a few named openings variations and in other cases their name choices seem a bit idiosyncratic to me, but it's a good reference and a reliable source. Quale (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked at the Oxford Companion to Chess and 20 other sources -- see the Talk page at Wade Defense for the list. Eric Schiller's Standard Chess Openings gives 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 as the Wade Defense, and I found an article by British IM Malcolm Pein that uses the term the same way. You're quite right about Wade being alive and well (sorry about claiming he was "the late"; dunno where I got that idea). At chessgames.com, Schiller, in the page about Wade, has a Feb. 18 comment saying that Wade is going to be playing in an international tournament imminently, thus making him the oldest player ever to play in a GM-norm tournament. Krakatoa (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The opening was developed by English players so has ties to England; should be British English.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely oppose WP:ENGVAR does not justify juggling titles like this. Is this mandate going to extend to French Defence, because France is in the EU? King's Indian? Or are we going to leave things alone? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You bring up WP:ENGVAR which says "Strong national ties to a topic - An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.". Do you believe WP:ENGVAR is incorrect or that "Strong national ties to a topic" doesn't apply to this topic? ChessCreator (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That "strong national ties" doesn't apply to this topic. The ties within chess are much stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If strong national ties didn't apply to this topic I would not have made the request to rename it. You realise it was so named because it was initially played by English players (although there is no specifics to my knowledge on who and how this come about), even so, is it not clear from the topic title that there is a national tie? ChessCreator (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        One English player; Staunton, IIRC. This article should say and does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Often chess openings are named for people and places. When those people or places have strong national tie to a particular variety of English, that spelling should be respected in the article title. Examples include Fischer Defence, Marshall Defence, Manhattan Defence, Cambridge Springs Defence, St. George Defense, Barnes Defense. Aside from this page, the only other current page I can see that would require renaming is the Barnes D. (and the Wade D., although I think that should be deleted). Your example of the French Defence not only does not exhibit a strong tie to a particular English variety, but also is already at French Defence anyway. I suppose that if there were a Churchill Defence (Lord Randolph Churchill founded the Oxford University Chess Club) you would be OK with the article title being Churchill Defense if it had been originally created that way. I just don't agree with this. It's ironic, but if there had not been a typo in the original redirect created at English Defense I would have simply made the page move nearly a year ago and I suspect that you would never have noticed. Quale (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The title of this article is imo a proper noun, in which case the most common spelling should be used. Googling for "English Defense" chess gives 1630 hits, "English Defence" chess gives more than twice that: 3600 hits, Voorlandt (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference in spelling is a purely Anglo-American difference, which is an exception to our naming conventions. See WP:ENGVAR and leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Working here on Wiki chess stuff, you get to see both versions of defence/defense on a daily basis and they become fairly interchangeable. And yet, 'English Defense' still manages to strike me as incongruous, at the very least. Maybe it's just that the original English Defence Batsford Book has been sitting here on my bookshelf since 1987. Whatever, changing it seems to make sense. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is sound reasoning; in the wave of patriotism above, however, it does not quite convince me. Better to settle this on chess grounds, than because it's OURS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose For my previous reasons and the reason this move request failed before. TJ Spyke 05:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - WP:ENGVAR and WP:CSB would appear to be relevant. FlagSteward (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per reasons listed thus far. Bssc81 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm not sure that WP:ENGVAR's threshold for "strong national ties to a topic" means that topics that are merely named for a particular country but not intimately associated with it (e.g., English rule (legal term), English saddle, American shot) must use that country's English variant in the title or text. — AjaxSmack 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Review of "no consensus" close of second move request

I have requested an independent review of the "no consensus" close of the second move request as I believe it to be improper. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Request review of "no consensus" decision on English Defense. Quale (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added to the article (from a reliable source) that the inventor of the opening was an Englishman (a P.N. Wallis of Leicester) and that it was developed by by English grandmasters. I should have mentioned this in the discussion but did not-- perhaps it went unnoticed. I don't think there's any doubt that in this case there are strong national ties. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In The English Defence ...e6, ...b6, ...Bb7 by Raymond Keene, James Plaskett and Jon Tisdall, Colliers Books, 1987, ISBN 0-02-028690-2 , GM Plaskett writes in the Introduction (page ix):

The reasons for England arrogating this opening to herself are principally Wallis, Basman, Keene, Stean and Miles. These men boldly went where few had gone before in employing the move orders 1 d4 e6 2 c4 b6 or 1 c4 b6 in their games as Black in the 1970's (and in Wallis' case even earlier) and many of the seminal ideas and model games of the opening are theirs.

Indeed, if we go back to the last century the Reverend Owen was fianchettoing his queen's bishop as Black almost regardless of White's opening moves, while Tinsley (see page 28) unambiguously used a main line of the English Defence at London 1899. And then in the 1950's and 1960's the English county player Thompson regularly chose to deploy his pieces thus as Black: ...b6, ...Bb7, ...g6, ...Bg7, ...e6, ...d6, ...Ne7, ...Nd7 etc. This huddled formation became known (I know not why) as "The Hippopotamus", which Boris Spassky played in some World Championship games against Petrosian. Krakatoa (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

The article here used to be very short indeed. I've just done a fairly extensive re-write of much of the article. Changes as follows...

The majority of the article used to be a section entitled 'Description' which went backwards and forwards between brief notes on the history of the opening and brief notes on the opening itself. I've separated these out into separate sections ('History' and 'Description') and filled them out with details of high-level / early practitioners and a few sample lines and transpositions.

Also added what is hopefully a comprehensive bibliography of works on this opening (including the 2023 works by both Gonzalez and Semkov).

To be honest, I'd have liked to have filled the article out rather more, but hopefully the changes above take things forward to some degree. Axad12 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]