Misplaced Pages

Talk:Berlin Defence

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cobblet (talk | contribs) at 18:50, 11 June 2022 (→Not ready for GAN: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:50, 11 June 2022 by Cobblet (talk | contribs) (→Not ready for GAN: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Berlin Defence is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by SirGallantThe4th (talk) at 20:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)


WikiProject iconArticles for creation B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted from this draft on 14 September 2019 by reviewer Scope creep (talk · contribs).
WikiProject iconChess C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Misplaced Pages. 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Not ready for GAN

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but in its present state, this article is nowhere close to meeting the good article criteria. I see references to sources that do not meet the criteria for reliability such as Chessgames database statistics and Chess.com blogs. Some statements are completely unsourced. Meanwhile, out of the many substantial (i.e., book-length) and reliable sources that could be used to write this article, only one (Bernal's book) is cited, which indicates that way too little research has been done. The article's coverage cannot be considered neutral and broad when both the Berlin endgame and 4.d3, which are main lines with tons of theory, somehow receive less attention than the vastly less significant 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 sideline, and another major line 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.Re1 is not mentioned at all.

Proper research (see e.g., the books by Cox, Lysyj/Ovetchkin, and Roiz) will show that an important distinction between it and other solid responses to 1.e4 like the Petroff, and a crucial reason why it remains so popular, is that Black is not just grovelling for a draw in the Berlin endgame, but has a flexible setup with dynamic possibilities thanks to his bishop pair.

We currently have two articles on chess openings which are Good Articles, Budapest Gambit and Modern Benoni. I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination until more research and writing has been done and this article approaches the breadth and depth of the other two. Cobblet (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories: