Talk:King's Gambit

Weaseling

This article uses an excessive amount of weasel language. Please reference the various claims that this-or-that line "is considered" better or worse. --Malathion 23:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen plays it at top level

In light of the mention about the King's Gambit being rarely seen at master level, is it newsworthy to add that Magnus Carlsen scored the full point with it against a 2750 this June 17th?

(http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1584993) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.66.165 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking

Who removed the part about kicking? That seemed like a legitimate strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.54.230 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New diagrams

I apply a new template of chess diagram according to inter-wiki chess project: [1]. Please read this and join the discussion. --Klin 08:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some editing in terms of the way it is written.--Gagueci 21:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article states in the introduction that "Black can obtain a reasonable position by relinquishing the extra pawn at a later time and consolidating defensively" and that "Black must decide whether or not to accept the gambit. Since White cannot easily regain the pawn if Black accepts, the King's Gambit Accepted is the most common." just under the "Variations" header. This looks contradictory. Does it make sense to win a pawn because if your chances of survival depend on losing it later? MJGR 09:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; do you know anything about chess? 74.225.130.13 21:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small error

The second paragraph in "King's Gambit Declined" contains a numbering error. The line "2...Nf6 3.fxe5 Nxe4 4.Nf3 Ng5! 4.d4 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qh4+ 6.Qf2 Qxf2+ 7.Kxf2" contains two moves of move 4.. I assume that the second move should be numbered 5., but I'm just assuming that. It would be nice if someone with intimite knowledge of the subject could fix it, because it causes some confusion. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpol (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That went a while without being corrected. I've fixed it now. 91.105.26.235 23:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed

The Fischer Defense is mentioned four times in the text, which is at least two times too many. The American Chess Quarterly article is cited in two widely separated spots, and there's too much repetition. These should be consolidated. I can't do it right now, but I may give it a try later unless someone better equipped for the task takes it on first. Quale (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go. I agree there was too much of it, especially as it has a separate article of its own! Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha?

"Theory has shown that in order for Black to maintain the one pawn advantage, moves must be made that seriously weaken the position of the Black pieces"

Makes no sense!

Yes, this is correct. That is the whole point of the gambit. Either (1) Black gets to keep the one-pawn advantage, but gets a weak position, or else (2) Black loses the one-pawn advantage, but avoids a weak position. I will correct the article back to what it was before. Holy (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is right. Black has to weaken his position if he holds on to the pawn. BTW, "black" and "white" are caps when they are used to substitute for a player's name, but not otherwise. Bubba73 (talk), 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Fischer

"Despite this, Fischer played the King's Gambit himself in three subsequent tournament games, winning all of them." - It should be noted that the Fischer defence is a continuation after 3.Nf3, where all the games that Fischer played in the King's Gambit after this were the Bishop's Gambit, 3.Bc4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.135.187 (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.Nf3 Qe7

The article said, "The odd 3. Nf3 Qe7 (intending 4.Nc3 d5!) is an interesting surprise weapon, but doubtful if White knows what he's doing." This is not supported by reliable sources, or indeed any sources. Moreover, as far as I can tell, this quote is a blend of original research and/or the writer's POV. The line is extremely rare. It is not mentioned in the King's Gambit specialist books by Korchnoi and Zak, Estrin and Glaskov, or Gallagher. Chessgames.com has only a handful of games with the move. White scores well, including with the natural and almost invariably played 4.Nc3, which the text implies is weak. The exclamation point after 4.Nc3 d5! is certainly POV - there is no apparent reason why that move should be strong. At a minimum, surely White is doing OK after 5.Nxd5 Qxe4+ 6.Qe2 Qxe2+ 7.Bxe2 Bd6 8.d4. Who says it's an interesting surprise weapon, or that it's doubtful if White knows what he's doing? These assertions, too, are unsupported and POV. Finally, given how rare this line is, and the fact that no one I can find talks about it, how is White supposed to "know what he's doing"? This is unhelpful to the reader, who isn't told what White should do, nor referred to any source for enlightenment on this score. For all of these reasons, this discussion of 3...Qe7 seems improper to me and I have accordingly deleted it from the article. Krakatoa (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization suggested

I suggest the lines after 2...exf4 3.Nf3 are arranged in this order: - 3...g5 (Classical) - 3...d6 (Fischer) - 3...h6 (Becker) (these are closely related) - 3...d5 (Modern) - 3...Ne7 (Bonsch Osmolovsky) - 3...Nf6 (Schallop) - 3...Be7 (Cunningham) - Minor lines. grouping related lines together as this will make it easier to discuss plans and lines without repeating explanations — Preceding unsigned comment added by SverreJ0 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solved via brute force?

I don't really feel qualified enough about Chess to add to the main listing but I wanted to point this out to anyone does. This guys seems to have tried all possible moves and seems to have a good analysis. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.30.168.56 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC) In view of chessbase's well known love of April Fools pranks, I'm a little suspicious of the article. Note that the interview itself was given on April 1. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, ChessBase admits it's a prank. http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051 24.218.46.19 (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should've read the talk page first. Came across the article and wondered why it hadn't been mentioned here. Oops. Regardless, it seems that many people were duped -- or at the very least that it attracted a good amount of attention -- and so is worth mentioning to prevent future shame :) --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Toccata quarta points out, this April Fools really has nothing to do with the KG itself. If it is to go anywhere it would belong at chessbase.com, although I'm doubtful that it warrants a mention even there. Quale (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I google for "a bust to the king's gambit" the wiki entry is no.2 & chessbase prank is no.3 but the two disclaimers by chessbase (later articles) do not come-up in google search at all. I truly got fooled (that too 3 years after the intended prank), so as a clarification, I have linked both the chessbase's prank & subsequent explanations. Hope this prevents new people getting fooled by a combination of google search & chessbase :) J mareeswaran (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Muzio

I added the Double Muzio bit. I may be pushing my luck adding the Triple Muzio system (heh) which follows the double, but with 8.b3 (so white can further insist on the third sac with Bb2)

There are many variations, however Kd8 (instead of Kxf7 accepting the third sac) and/or f6 give black too much time to end up using his extra material. With black queen temporarily out of play (especially if Qxa1 Nc3) white can sometimes force draws with rook and queen.

Note: before you consider this completely crazy and "not chess" you should look at Tartakower - Leonhardt (1908) http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1076107

74.68.153.226 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "If Black does not capture immediately, it can be forced with Bb2, hoping Black does not know about the Kd8 defense to the following Bxf7+.)" Wishful thinking doesn't usually work... Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King's Knight G vs. King Knight's G vs. King's Knight's G

I've checked some sources, and find no real consistency in name form. (I've found "King's Knight Gambit", "King Knight's Gambit", and "King's Kight's Gambit".) Our Glossary of chess is fond of "king knight" not "king's knight", however whether consistency is even possible I don't know, for example, King's Pawn Game not "king pawn's". It seems that "king's knight's" s/b avoided however, at least that's MO. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best to accept the gambit ?

Didn't Tarrasch prove that Falkbeer's countergambit is superior ? I haven't come across any "Grandmaster game" where White has dared to play King's Gambit ... ever. (I used to play high level games occationally, and still have a brief look on chess columns in newspapers) I'm rather fond of playing accepted King's Gambit myself. But that's not much worth, I'm not even a club player. (I have a cousin that 20 years ago had an ELO-rating of around 1875 , who I then managed to defeat though) However - back to the question, am I under wrong impression ? Is King's Gambit actually still played, and accepted when played ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have played it multiple times on chess.com Boeing720 and I mostly win except when it is declined. My few wins against 1500 glicko + are after the King's Gambit Accepted i'm 1200-1300 glicko. so I wouldn't accept it. Michael james campbell (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio Gambit

5...Qh4+ 6.Kf1 Nc6! appears to be a good attempt at a refutation. 7.Nxf7 Bc5 8.Qe1 g3! 9.Nxh8 Bf2 10.Qd1 Nf6 11.d4 d5 12.exd5 Bg4 13.Be2 Nxd4 14.Nc3 f3! 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 is known theory and White is either mated or loses heavy material. But is 11.Nc3 an improvement? I would guess 11...Ng4 to be the way to go, but this is complicated. Double sharp (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12.Nd5 Kf8 13.h3 or 12.h3 seem plausible but tend to result in the triumph of Black's g-pawn. Maybe 13.c3 is a better idea?! (It stops the knight coming to d4 to help set up the mating net.) 13...d6 does free the bishop and get another piece moving into the action – Black is already down a rook. (S)he has to mate, force a draw, or at least regain material equality. Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like h3 and c3 are plausible pawn moves, preventing checks at g4 and d4 respectively. 13.Nxc7+ seems too materialistic and seems to just result in doom. Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's subject. Your analysis looks good but it's original research so we can't use it. A chess forum (e.g. chesspub.com) would be a better venue to discuss your analysis. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defence/Defense

Don't care which one we go for but let's put the British English or American English template at the head and avoid any reverts/edit wars over Noah Webster's preferences. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN applies, so I reverted. Quale (talk) 06:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both spellings are still being used. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC) This edit by an IP is the first to introduce the word "defense/defence" to the article. Accordingly, the spelling "defense" (and American spellings generally) should be used unless there is consensus to change it. And yes, it's a rather arbitrary way to determine it, but WP:RETAIN applies. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It isn't completely arbitrary of course, and it is designed to make a definite determination even if in a somewhat arbitrary way. Bobby Fischer uses AmE and Tony Miles should use BrE according to the strong national ties criterion. Most articles don't have strong national ties so the sensible thing to do is to use the variant established by the first major contributor. It would be truly arbitrary if we let drive by editors change spellings to their favorite variant, especially since this is nearly always their only "contribution". The only other alternative would be to establish a single preferred spelling across all of of Wikipedia, and there's no chance that would fly. As an aside, even the variants can't decide on a single spelling. Oxford spelling uses -ize in a way familiar to Americans, and I've noticed a recent tendency in America to (mis)spell "canceled" using the British "cancelled". Quale (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that this also comes up when considering date formats. The application of strong national ties is a little subtle there. If day-month-year dates are used in Germany then some editors seem to think that strong national ties means that date format is required in biographies of Germans. I don't think that's correct. Since Germany is not English-speaking, strong national ties doesn't apply and the date formats are subject to the same RETAIN principle that applies to spelling variants. (For example, I assume that Germans might use 16 Dezember instead of December 16.) Dates for articles tied to the UK, India, Canada, etc. should use the local format. Quale (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated source

An IP keeps adding a source to WikiBooks, which I believe should not be cited due to it being user-generated content. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Schallopp

Seems fine rather than dubious, at least according to Stockfish (source). Double sharp (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw agrees that 3...Nf6 is a decent move. Since the claim is unsourced I'll remove it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK the line given was unsourced and it was rubbish. Black's normal move after 3...Nf6 4.e5 Nh5 5.d4 is 5...d6, not 5...g5?!, and the line just gets worse from there. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Göttingen manuscript

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6ttingen_manuscript

There is no Kings Gambit in Göttingen manuscript. Best regards, Marius Ringwelski 2003:CB:672D:75F4:2935:EE1C:553C:CBF1 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section

It says "Engine evaluations tend to be around -1 after 1.e4." This is certainly false since 1.e4 is considered by many to be the strongest opening move for white. I assume it is meant to be "after 2.f4" or "after 1.e4 e5 2.f4". Additionally, I can't find a free engine giving it an evaluation that bad. Stockfish on lichess gives it -0.5, on chess.com -0.46 at depth 36. If there is a paid version or deeper analysis that actually gives it -1 it would be best to cite it to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.72.226 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it, I don't like references to engine evals in chess articles in general (we should be writing from a human-centric point of view), and if you must refer to engine evals then you need a source. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Single subsections are generally bad

The issue with short sections is maybe a little subtle, so more explanation might help. The point of subsections is to divide a section into several parts. If there is only a single part there is normally no need for a subsection so most often a single subsection is pointless and a bad idea. Putting a single subsection under Falkbeer is bad. (Trying to put two subsections under Falkbeer would be worse because they aren't warranted.) Furthermore, 3...c6 has been the main line of the Falkbeer for the last 40 years. So

   3. King's Gambit Declined
       3.1 Falkbeer Countergambit
           3.1.1 Nimzowitsch-Marshall Countergambit
       3.2 Classical Defense
       3.3 Other second moves by Black

is just bad. Nimzowitsch-Marshal CG is just the Falkbeer and does not deserve a third level section. Look at the TOC to see how out of place this is.

Contrast with a better use of subsections in this article

   2.1	King's Knight's Gambit: 3.Nf3
       2.1.1	Classical Variation: 3...g5
         2.1.1.1	4.h4: Kieseritzky Gambit and Allgaier Gambit
         2.1.1.2	4.Bc4 g4: Muzio Gambit and others
         2.1.1.3	4.Bc4 Bg7: Hanstein Gambit and Philidor Gambit
         2.1.1.4	4.Nc3: Quaade Gambit
         2.1.1.5	4.d4: Rosentreter Gambit
      2.1.2	Modern Defense: 3...d5
      2.1.3	Fischer Defense: 3...d6
      ...

No single subsection sections here. It's unfortunate that the subsections are nested so deep, but there's a lot of theory in these lines. There are shorter sections on the page, but those shorter sections are not single subsections but serve a purpose to actually provide a useful and necessary logical subdivision of the page. The Nimzowitsch-Marshall Countergambit subsection is not necessary or useful. I would be surprised to hear any player say "I responded to his KG with the Nimzowitsch-Marshall CG". They would simply say they played the Falkbeer. Quale (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've persuaded me. The main reason I wanted to keep it is because I wanted to balance out the excessive subsections in classical and make the alternatives to exf4 seem less afterthought-like, especially since the 4th level headers and 5th level headers there render identically (on my end at least), do you think there might be a viable alternative approach for those? Dayshade (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An idea I'd had was to make 3.Nf3 its own subsection, and make 2...exf4 without Nf3 an equal subsection, but idk if it would actually be an improvement. Dayshade (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could I get some feedback on my changes to Indian Defence? Dayshade (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but recent changes have completely screwed up the logical structure of the article. In addition much WP:OR was added, and lots of unnecessary detail and elaboration. Sorry to trash it but WP:TNT really looks like the only solution. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can reintegrate some of what I'd written while it keeping the old header structure intact. Maybe I should move out the classical variation to its own article or something? It just looked awkward to me with the fifth level headers and so on. As for WP:OR, these are all represented in opening databases (chess.com/lichess), and I think it's good to be mentioning known theory from ECO. I've posted on your and Quale's talk pages about how to best integrate the sources I am using into my work, since I feel like it would be weird to just cite ECO codes/opening databases all the time, but haven't heard back yet. I'll do my best to keep any editorializing to even lower than what I have kept it to so far. I think King's Gambit is a great example of an opening that deserves some unnecessary detail due to the beauty of many of the lines, but perhaps that can be more left to the variation articles. What do you think? Dayshade (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could also add references to to chess.com articles and talks/videos by grandmasters, but I am heavily paraphrasing and combining what's known from them with opening database data while trying to put it into a single wording. Also, if anyone can look at their published books on the gambits and add citations to my additions (which should be known lines, perhaps with the exception of the "____ is an alternative" bits) on my behalf, that could be nice too. Dayshade (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for "This is known as the King's Knight's Gambit.", would "This can be referred to as the King's Knight's Gambit." be better? Dayshade (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're so against, but I would really really prefer to either allow the header reorganization or allow the spinning off to a different article. I thought the spinning off worked well since it allowed the 3...g5 section on this article to be briefer than it was, while allowing more detail in the independent article for 3...g5. The version with fifth level headers nested inside fourth level headers is just not very readable to me and that's I keep trying to change it. Dayshade (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it looks kinda inconsistent to me as is since nowhere else in the article goes into fifth level, and only the rest of 3.Nf3 even has fourth level ones. Dayshade (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-examine your entire approach to editing.

It's because you are making radical changes to articles that have been stable for years, and you're doing it without WP:CONSENSUS. Your entire approach to editing is problematic because it is not policy based. It is based around Original Research and WP:SYNTHESIS, your own interpretations of database queries and running engines, and you don't even cite sources.

Your approach to dumping opening names is also problematic, and appears to derive from a SCID file intended for computer programs. "Most popular is (move x), the Yook Variation, followed by (move y), the Zook Variation" - how is this kind of writing even useful? Besides some of the names given there are non-standard. I've never heard "Polerio Variation" for 5...Na5 in the Two Knights.

You are also adding a lot of unncessary bloat in the introductory paragraphs of article sections with your "Captain Obvious" explanations, and making unsourced claims.

If you believe some piece of analysis is out of date based on your database and engine research, maybe you could raise it on the talk page first. It's quite possible that reliable sources have already incorporated this new analysis. But if you can't source it, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to be cutting edge; it just reflects what the current reliable sources say. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For consensus, I have been attempting to integrate your recommendations and address your criticisms to the best of my ability. Also, we don't have enough people giving more thoughts to have a consensus. I never seemed to get anywhere in the past with keeping to talk pages before editing, which is why I've taken initiative, although I must confess a fascination with this opening. I'm glad to be discussing this further now. Also I think my editorial synthesis qualifies as the third (acceptable) example in the link you gave. I'm not deriving new claims, just combining them into paragraphs/sections.

I am still trying to get more input on the best way to cite my claims without using physical books (these non-book citations are already widespread in most other openings articles, plus a lot of the book citations have very large page ranges). My current intention is to cite the grandmaster videos/recordings (perhaps with timestamps) where they show and discuss the lines I am describing. However, I would like to get more explicit advice about what the most reliable types of sources/best methods to cite my claims other than through physical books would be. My "own interpretations of database queries and running engines" are only used to make sure I have the correct interpretation and also simply verify what I see in secondary sources/can objectively determine from observation of a primary source (the database stats).

I admit there is an element of original research that I think must occur when I convert what I have learned into Wikipedia article text, combined with looking at an opening database (citations to these are already widespread in other articles). However, there are too many problems with limiting only to quotes/close paraphrasals from physical books, which I've outlined on your talk page. I think much more paraphrasing than usual to create these types of opening articles in the structure preferred is necessary. And I am confident these claims can be verified in a reliable printed source, which others seem to have access to, even if all online ones were ruled out.

I think the most problematic of my additions would be the ones where there are sentences like "because this would allow 5...axb4" and things like that, and perhaps the "is well regarded"/"is not well regarded", which I am attempting to use to briefly convey eval without any editorializing. I am fine with trimming those all out, but I also think you could argue them to fall under the calculation exception, as any experienced player should be able to quickly observe such position features, and anyone can verify the claim in an engine.

The SCID file is virtually identical to more human oriented websites like what I sent (there are several other sites showing nearly identical lists of opening lines). I do not see why reporting on what these are and showing position diagrams of what I find to be interesting positions, that were explored in the 19th century and before by famous masters, is problematic. As for "what the current reliable sources say", many of the sources I've seen are well over 10 years old, and often over 20, even into 1980s and before, and often very biased, which I think is problematic given how much opening theory has continued to evolve.

As for the unnecessary bloats to introductory paragraphs, these were not obvious as a new player, and this is an encyclopedia regardless. Best to err on the side of too obvious. I also don't think any of the introductions have grown beyond 4-5 reasonably short paragraphs. This also allows the additions of more links to other articles, and comparable intros are already on other articles. However, perhaps it would be nice to come up with a standardized recommendation for how the introduction of an opening article looks. The claims are usually based on objective observations of frequency and draw percentage, or are summaries of longer cited claims elsewhere in the article.

Specifically with regards to whether Classical Variation should be split out, I feel strongly that it was too cramped in the old version. Plus, I think you could argue there was too much detail on that variation. So with my proposed change, we have a more reasonable length 3...g5 section, with more ability to discuss sidelines like the Salvio without even more 4th/5th level headers on the separate page for 3...g5 in a reasonable way. I think the new article with 3...g5 is much more readable to me than the heavily nested headers in the live version here. Dayshade (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I indented DayShade's reply per H:TP conventions.) There's a lot to discuss, but on the specific question of whether a split of the KG page is warranted I think I understand the view that MaxBrowne2 has that it's better to keep the coverage in context on the KG page. I also think the Dayshade's points in favor of the split have merit. The KG page has fourth level sections. To me this really seems like too much nesting, but if all the material is kept in KG I don't see a good alternative. I think the King's Gambit, Classical Variation page looks much tidier and the section nesting is only two deep. Additionally, adding more diagrams works much better in a split page and I think more diagrams is often good. There is one other concern that Max raised, and I share this concern. One serious difficulty splitting chess opening pages is finding a good name for the split page. Sometimes this is very easy. For example, there are a dozen or more well-known variations of the Sicilian Defence that make easy split targets, and most or all of them have enough meat to be potentially worthy of being split. The issue with the KG is that the variations with well-known names are sometimes too small to be worth splitting. The Classical Variation seems to me to be a pretty good split point except that I'm not sure "Classical Variation" is a widely recognized variation name. I'm not questioning the validity of this name, I'm just saying that many chess opening names exist that are rarely used in practice and that most chess players would not recognize. Quale (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You won't see any chapter called "Classical Defence" in, for example, Joe Gallagher's book. He has "Kieseritzky Gambit" (which he rightly considers the main line after 3...g5) and "Other gambits after 3...g5". Sorry but the term "Classical Defence" is simply not in common use, it's just 3...g5. I don't think the nesting is sufficient reason to create an article with a title most chess players won't even recognize. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a bit, Kieseritzky Gambit and Muzio Gambit are notable enough in their own right to merit separate articles that expand somewhat on the analysis given in the main King's Gambit article. But not the generic 3...g5, and not with a title that nobody will recognize. If the nesting is really such an issue, find some other solution.MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the Classical Variation isn't in common use, and another weakness I thought of is that 2.f4 Bc5 is also called the Classical Variation (of KGD, as opposed to KGA, though we could do KG, CV -> KGA, CV). But, I think lots of people are very poorly versed in opening names in general anyway, and people who e.g. know the names of all the Sicilian lines that already have pages would also be aware of the name, or at least all the named gambits within the 3...g5 line, and it's a very self-explanatory name, especially as many Classical Variations exist in other openings. And it would then be informative as a name. We could also do "KG, Main Line" or "KG, 3...g5". However, I think there is a lot of merit to the split that outweighs any naming issues that I've outlined. Would you be willing to write a rebuttal to my points about the readability/crampedness/inconsistency with lower down lines in the article due to the nesting, as well as the to the benefit that a briefer summary of 3...g5 can be given on this page while more detail can be given about lines other than Kieseritzky and Muzio (which have their own pages) on the split page?

We also could do another version of the header changes you rejected earlier. Eg "3...g5 4.Bc4" and "3...g5 4.h4" etc could be their own 4th level headers, or we could make 3.Nf3 g5 its own header along with 3.Nf3 d6 and so on, but that would lose the latter benefit and like you said doesn't allow quite as clear move-by-move commentary, although it's only two moves so I think it's okay. But I really like the look of the new 3...g5 article where the lines get 2nd/3rd level headers, and it parallels the existing Fischer Defense article. Dayshade (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure why names that most players don't know are fine to introduce in headers but not in page names. Plus many openings with pages aren't well known either. Like the Grünfeld Defence, Nadanian Variation or Scotch Game, Classical Variation or Black Knights' Tango or Clemenz Opening or Modern Defense, Monkey's Bum or Sicilian Defence, Magnus Smith Trap, but we don't propose those for deletion and integration as fourth/fifth level headers into other pages. Dayshade (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for "better to keep the coverage in context", like I said, there would be more concise coverage on this page and longer explanations also including less common lines (ie not kieseritzky/muzio) on the independent page. I'm happy to make changes to what I had under the 3...g5 header in my most recent reverted revision. Dayshade (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]