This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs) at 21:07, 14 April 2022 (→why don't we have a section or something on the a4 thing that is used for quick draws?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:07, 14 April 2022 by SirGallantThe4th (talk | contribs) (→why don't we have a section or something on the a4 thing that is used for quick draws?: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Articles for creation B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Chess C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Lead reworking proposal
The lead section should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on". I propose (1) changing the lead to this:
The Berlin Defence, also called the Berlin Wall, is a chess opening that begins with the moves:
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6
The opening is a variation of the Ruy Lopez. After a period of disuse, it experienced a resurgence in popularity when Vladimir Kramnik used it extensively against Garry Kasparov in the 2000 Chess World Championships. Strategically, the Berlin Defence is normally used as a drawing weapon by players who want to obtain a draw as Black, and by players who prefer to play defensively and reach endgames.
(2) Move the Encylopedia codes to a list at the end of the article, similar to other chess articles. I think these codes are given too much prominence in a few articles, as they're more for the specialized reader.
(3) I think the solidity/drawishness of the opening is related to the early trade of Queens. Is this worth mentioning somewhere? If so, I can try to source a good reference to back this up.Dhalamh (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- The reorganization seems reasonable. May I make a couple of additional suggestions:
- "Berlin Wall" does not rise to the level of being an actual name of the variation; it was used by chess journalists for a while after Kramnik revived the line, but the novelty soon wore off.
- I am not sure it is correct to state that the B.D. is "normally used as a drawing weapon", etc. (However if you can find an article or book that supports that, OK with me.) Later the article (currently) says "a solid opening for Black to use in order to achieve an equal endgame". Although there is no source for this, it is a harmless thing to say, and so it's OK. There are many openings, including this one, in which White can bail to a drawish position if that's all he wants, but that doesn't make it a "drawing weapon". Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
why don't we have a section or something on the a4 thing that is used for quick draws?
eg levon vs wesley https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dly4PeRrWW8
eg wesley vs magnus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEb1lCJzZ-I
Thewriter006 (talk) 09:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I've added a section to the article showing the line and included a recent example where it was used in an OTB tournament. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The quotation from Nakamura does not help the article, since he doesn't discuss the actual variation, only his own strategies and motivations.
- The first part of that paragraph, about the draw between Nakamura and So, likewise is about the present-day chess scene, not about the variation. Note that chessgames.com is not a reliable source, although with games between grandmasters at level, you could sort of get away with it. But the whole paragraph is tangential to the subject of the article.
- You are right, the YouTubes are not a reliable source. The remedy in this case is to just delete the material that is citing them; it doesn't much help the article anyway. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I agree that everything after the quote doesn't help the article, but I do think that mentioning the infamy of the line among top-level play is useful. Feel free for anyone to revert if they disagree. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are right, the YouTubes are not a reliable source. The remedy in this case is to just delete the material that is citing them; it doesn't much help the article anyway. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)