Talk:Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack

Misnamed article?

Should this article be named "Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack" instead of "Larsen's Opening"? Shouldn't the actual names of the chess opening from the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) be used? The article itself says that in ECO, it is called the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack. Nimzowitsch's name is also spelled differently in different places, e.g., "Nimzovich", but "Nimzowitsch" appears to be the correct spelling. Anyone know what the ECO name actuallly is? Madzane (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madzane (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ECO rarely name openings or variations. It's a multi-language publication and translation any words is kept to a minimum. I don't have a copy to hand but I doubt any naming clarity will come from ECO. Aron Nimzowitsch was also Niemzowitsch. The later his birthname and the former as a result of an error on his passport. No idea how 'Nimzovich' came about but seems that was not his real name. ChessCreator (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

ECO does not name this opening. Coicidentally, the ECO material on it was written by LArsen. Bubba73 (talk), 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of subvariations

I've recently updated the article somewhat, combining the Bibliography and Further Reading sections and adding some extra books. I've also off-sectioned the history into a separate section and added some further info there.

While doing this I was rather concerned by the nomenclature used to describe the subvariations of this opening (e.g. 1...e5 = Modern Variation, 1...d5 = Classical Variation, 1...Nf6 = Indian Variation, 1...c5 is the English variation, etc).

These labels are not used in any of the books that cover 1.b3 (or 1.Nf3 2.b3). Also, no source material is quoted for where these names come from, and I'd suggest that they are both spurious and pointless, given that in most games Black is likely to play at least 2 or 3 moves out of e5/d5/Nf6/c5. That being the case, the transpositonal possibilities are so extreme that naming a variation after Black's first move is nonsensical.

It would be far better to discuss the opening in terms of the different positions that can arise after, say, move 4 or 5, e.g. reversed Nimzo-Indian, etc., which are the sorts of subdivision always used in books on 1.b3 / 1.b3 2.Nf3. Axad12 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Per WP:CHESSOPENINGS openings and variation names should only be used if they are published in reliable sources. There is a tendency to use obscure names someone on chess.com invented as if they're official. The unreliable (internet) sources copy each other and before you know it people think the Coca Cola Gambit is some kind of official name. I'd add anything by Schiller to the list of unreliable sources on opening names. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MaxBrowne2. I've now completely rewritten and expanded the section on variations, and added some notes on move-order considerations. Hopefully the re-write is a significant improvement. Axad12 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Title of Article: 'Larsen's Opening' or 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack'

The article is currently titled 'Larsen's Opening' and distinguishes Larsen's Opening 1.b3 from the Nimzo-Larsen Attack 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3.

I'd suggest that this is very much contrary to how these openings are described in books on the opening.

For example, the main texts on this opening are:

Ilya Odessky's book 'Play 1.b3! The Nimzo-Larsen Attack'.

Jacob's & Tait's book 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' (which deals with both move orders).

Keene's book 'Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack: 1.b3' (which also deals with both move orders).

(My recollection is that Dunnington's 'Winning Unorthodox Openings' also has a chapter on the 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' but only covers 1.b3.)

These examples show that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' is the umbrella term given to both the 1.b3 and 1.Nf3/b3 move orders and not a term only applied to the 1.Nf3 version. Keene's book was published in 1977, not long after Larsen had been playing the opening, so the preference for 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' has been the case for almost 50 years now.

By comparison there are no books about 'Larsen's Opening'. Maybe it is what shows on Chess.com whenever someone opens 1.b3, but as MaxBrowne2 mentions above, Chess.com is not a reliable source on opening names and certainly does not trump all books ever written on the opening.

The great majority of readers reaching this page will, I strongly suspect, have searched for 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' and will have been surprised to find that on Wikipedia it is referred to as 'Larsen's Opening'.

Any thoughts? (And, if there is agreement, how do we go about getting the title of the article changed?) Axad12 (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If the preponderance of RS call it "Nimzo-Larsen Attack", or even "Nimzowitsch's Opening" then we have a good case for a page move. I don't know much about this opening. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that every book dedicated to the opening calls it the 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack'. (In fact, looking at my bookshelf I see that I missed in my previous note Cyrus Lakdawala's 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack': Move by Move', which also covers both move orders.) There haven't been many books on this opening, just the 3 I mentioned before, plus Lakdawala, plus another one by Odessky.

Looking through the contents pages and introductions of the books, the term 'Larsen's Opening' doesn't seem to be used, either as a specific term for 1.b3 or for the opening complex more generally. Similarly, the Nimzo-Larsen Attack does not seem to be the specific name only applied to 1.Nf3/2.b3.

For example, Jacob's and Tait say (page 7) 'The Nimzo-Larsen arises after either 1.b3 or 1.Nf3 2.b3'. Lakdawala says (page 12) as part of a Q&A section: 'Doesn't the Nimzo-Larsen begin with 1.b3?. Answer: Technically, yes, but some players start the game with 1.Nf3 and 2.b3'.

Odessky does have two chapters on the reversed Nimzo-Indian, which he refers to as Nimzowitsch Attack, but really he is discussing a particular plan employed by Nimzowitsch in his games in that variation (Odessky's book is called 'Play 1.b3! The Nimzo-Indian Attack, which clarifies that he considers that to be the name of the entire opening complex).

Based on the above, is there a way of initiating a process to have the title of the article changed? (I understand that I cannot just change it in standard article edit mode, but my knowledge of Wikipedia processes is not great.) Axad12 (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You can do that if you have page mover rights. Another possibility is to open a WP:RFC (request for comment). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, will do (unless, for example, a user with page move rights would care to step in - perhaps user IHSO if he has those rights?).

Having read WP:RFC, I'm unsure if I just need to write 'rfc' in double curly brackets and then a brief question ('e.g. should this article be called 'Larsen's Opening' or 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack') or should the text inside double curly brackets be rfc| followed by a code, and then the brief question? And if a code is needed, which code?

Apologies but I find the published guidelines rather opaque. Apologies if I'm missing something rather obvious here. Axad12 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments: The opening was all the rage in late 70s, my Bible on it was this book where opening name is "Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack". Based on that, the slash if converted s/ be an ndash (Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack) instead of hyphen (as is used for Nimzo-Indian, etc.), because Nimzo in the latter case acts as a descriptive modifier, whereas joining w/ another person's name w/ call for ndash (Nimzo–Larsen Attack), but the choice by authors/publishers to abbreviate Nimzowitsch's name in that case seems informal. Methinks the non-abbreviated name is better & less confusing & less inconsistent re "Nimzo-Indian" etc. --IHTS (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and yes it was a very good book. However, given that all books from the year 2000 onwards (or after 1977) seem united in applying the name 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' to the entirety of the opening complex, what are your thoughts on adopting the name 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' for this article in preference to 'Larsen's Opening'? Axad12 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Somewhat fine w/ an ndash (Nimzo–Larsen Attack), not so fine w/ hyphen (Nimzo-Larsen Attack), which is counter MOS:NDASH when joining two named persons, for reasons prev explained. But methinks the informalization by abbreviation of Nimzowitsh's name in this case, isn't encyclopedic presentation, and looks weird & confusing when you throw "Nimzo–Larsen Attack" up against "Nimzo-Indian Defence", etc. Is there something wrong w/ the unabbreviated name "Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack"? ("Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack AKA Nimzo–Larsen Attack" makes sense but "Nimzo–Larsen Attack AKA Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack" doesn't and seems weird.) --IHTS (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To be honest the issue of ndash vs hyphen is one that had never occurred to me (and I only seem to have a hyphen available on my keyboard). But looking around Wikipedia I see that use of an ndash would be consistent with various other openings that link the names of two players. (Although not of course the Milner-Barry Attack, because Milner-Barry was the double-barrelled name of the inventor).

Looking at the various books on 1.b3/1.Nf3 2.b3, they all seem to be using a hyphen in the name, but if an ndash is required for house style reasons on Wikipedia then fine.

I see where you're coming from on the 'weird & confusing' front, and I wish I could think of a comparable example of an opening with the formulation of 'abbreviated version of someone's name' (ndash or hyphen) 'full version of someone else's name'. I can't think of one, and the only other case of an abbreviated name that occurs to me is in 'Bogo-Indian' (and perhaps 'Dzindzi-Indian', after Roman Dzindzichashvili), which is obviously comparable to Nimzo-Indian and doesn't help in the case we're looking at. On searching for Dzinzdi (to check my spelling!) I do see, however, a reference on Wikipedia to the Dzindzi-Rybka 3 match, which is spelt with an ndash between the names of the contenders (on page 'Human-Computer Chess Matches'). Does this help as a precedent?

However, I do think we need to accept that (based on near universal usage), the first part of the name of this opening is undoubtedly 'Nimzo' rather than 'Nimzowitsch'. (Although, that said, 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' would still be a clear improvement over 'Larsen's Opening', especially if the lead paragraph then said '...usually abbreviated to Nimzo-Larsen Attack'.) Axad12 (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ndash is of course used throughout WP (e.g. Caro–Kann Defence, Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), etc) w/ their hyphenated counterparts (technical misspells) as redirects. My own recommend/pref for title is full name "Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack" not abbreviated name, w/ "Nimzo–Larsen Attack" as alternate name form bolded in the lead, along w/ its redirect. Again, "Nimzo–Larsen Attack ... AKA Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack" to me is possibly confusing as explained, and seems counterintuitive/wrong/weird.) --IHTS (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, noted. I could live with that and I don't disagree with your logic.

My personal feeling is that the correct name is Nimzo-Larsen Attack (with hyphen) and that the name is just genuinely anomalous in following the form of the older and much better known Nimzo-Indian Defence, despite the issues that that raises.

I wonder if any other editors would care to add their thoughts and maybe a consensus will develop one way or the other.

A third option is 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' spelt with ndash.

And the fourth option of 'Larsen's Opening' is still on the table but doesn't seem to have attracted any support thus far... Axad12 (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, back in 2008 (above) user Madzane expressed a preference for 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' (with hyphen, although if a consensus develops in that direction I agree with user IHSO that an ndash would be required for consistency with other similarly named openings). Axad12 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The avg editor doesn't know or care the diff between hyphen & ndash, hyphen is used reflexively w/o thinking about it or reviewing the MoS, which am sure was the case in the above Talk-thread. Not so much a matter of consistency, rather pure MOS:NDASH, when an editor came along who cared. Am not a grammarian, my simple guess is "Nimzo-Indian" takes a hyphen because Nimzo then acts as descriptive modifier, not a name balancing or conjoining w/ a second name. --IHTS (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

In the short term I think perhaps best if we wait for a consensus to develop on whether the title of the article should be: Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack, Nimzo-Larsen Attack, or Larsen's Opening.

(Once that's established we can consider whether the word 'Nimzo-Larsen' (which must inevitably appear in the article somewhere) should follow ndash forms such as Caro-Kann or hyphen forms such as Bogo-Indian. Either way, it will end up looking odd when juxtaposed against a name which takes the opposite form. Prediction: one day there will be a world where there are only hyphens - indeed, for most people that world already exists, so it is only in employing an ndash here that inconsistency is created. If the article was written using solely hyphenated forms then 99.9% of readers would see no inconsistency or problem. Thus, if following MOS:NDASH is only going to create an impression of inconsistency could we not just overlook it on this occasion, given that the writers of those guidelines could not have foreseen this situation and probably would not have wanted to create a situation which generated inconsistency rather than consistency. I don't mean to suggest driving a coach and horses through the Wikipedia style guidelines, just trying to suggest a pragmatic way forward on this occasion.) Axad12 (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Using the same line of reasoning, we s/ stop capitalizing first words in sentences and stop using periods at end of sentences since nearly everyone who text messages doesn't do so, including trend-setter Elon Musk. Can't agree that following the MoS creates inconsistency, the MoS is generally well-thought-out that's why it gets very detailed at times. But for the avg reader yeah, perhaps their eye sees inconsistency. So let's stop capitalizing sentences and using terminal punc to make avg readers more comfortable? If you want to create a non-MoS article title as a protest or to lead a grammatical revolution, I'm out. --IHTS (talk) 09:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

In fairness, what you've just said wasn't "using the same line of reasoning", it was exaggerating the issue to the point of absurdity. Obviously that wasn't what I was suggesting.

As I said "I don't want to drive a coach and horses through the Wikipedia style guidelines, just trying to suggest a pragmatic way forward on this occasion".

However, it seems that you, I and MaxBrowne2 are basically agreed that the article should be titled 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack' and that the first line should read 'The Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack (usually abbreviated to Nimzo-Larsen Attack)...'. Let's try to concentrate on where we have common ground.

I would add however, that the 'Nimzo-Indian Defence' definitely used to be called the 'Nimzowitsch Indian Defence', but the article on Wikipedia is instead called 'Nimzo-Indian Defence'. Presumably the article is titled 'Nimzo-Indian Defence' on the strength of common modern usage and the titles of the many books on the subject. That being the case, could you clarify why earlier you objected to the 'informalization by abbreviation of Nimzowitsch's name [in the 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' because it] isn't encyclopaedic presentation' but you don't seem to adopt that view in relation to the Nimzo-Indian Defence - despite the fact that the derivation of the Nimzo element is clearly identical? Axad12 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

For example:

Hooper & Whyld's entry for the Nimzo-Indian in their Oxford Companion: 'The name is a contraction of Nimzowitsch-Indian'.

Keene in Winning with the Nimzo-Indian (p9): 'The Nimzowitsch Indian Defence (or Nimzo-Indian ...)'.

Taimanov's 1972 opening book Nimzowitsch-Indische bis Katalanisch.

So on what basis is Nimzo-Indian an entirely acceptable abbreviation but Nizmo-Larsen is a non-encyclopaedic 'informalization by abbreviation'?

By comparison, no book has called the Nimzo-Larsen 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen' since 1977, and at least 5 since then have called it 'Nimzo-Larsen'. Axad12 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree that "Larsen's Opening" is not the right name for this article. My personal preference is Nimzowitsch-Larsen Opening but anything similar is ok. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks to MaxBrowne2 for recently changing the title of the article to 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack', this is certainly a big improvement over the previous 'Larsen's Opening'. I have gone through the article to make some minor changes to reflect this, e.g in the sidebar, one of the captions of the chess diagrams, etc.

To some extent I'm surprised that the title change was made before user IHSO had the opportunity to clarify his strong objection to 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' being the title of the article, especially given that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' clearly represents universal usage over the last 25+ years and represents no more of a 'non-encyclopaedic' 'informalization by abbreviation' than the generally accepted form 'Nimzo-Indian Defence'.

Perhaps IHSO would like to clarify why he feels his stance on this is not inconsistent (or does he next hope to convince readers of the Nimzo-Indian Defence page that the title there should be 'Nimzowitsch Indian Defence' with the first line saying 'commonly abbreviated to Nimzo-Indian Defence'?) Axad12 (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

All your latest Qs are silly and antagonizing or you have reading comprehension issues, as have already been excessively clear on all points. And the recent rename am interpreting is intentional personal dig. Done here. --IHTS (talk)

IHTS, recently you and I have been collaborating well on a few of the chess pages here and the result has definitely been an improvement to those pages. Consequently I'm reluctant to fall out over what the name of this page should be.

However, the issue which I've been consistently trying to get you to comment on, and which you have not previously commented on, is why you feel that your own personal opinion (re: Nimzo-Larsen Attack being an inappropriate informalized abbreviation) should override 25 years of consistent and pretty much universal use of the abbreviated form by numerous GMs and IMs and their publishers.

To be honest that seems to be a perfectly reasonable question. It is entirely valid that that question should be properly addressed. Axad12 (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - the long-term stable title has been restored here. A formal WP:RM discussion should be opened, citing evidence for and against each option, and then a closer will determine if the move should go ahead and where.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

We already have consensus. The wider wikipedia community (including yourself) don't know or care about chess opening names. It is a myth that there is a presumption in favour of the WP:STATUSQUO. This is a low traffic article which even those of us who regularly edit chess articles simply haven't paid much attention to. There is no need for the rigmarole of a WP:RM, throwing the decision open to a whole bunch of people who know nothing about chess. Only difference between my move and IHTS's was that he used an n-dash rather than a hyphen, a distinction I've never really understood. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Well that's not how Wikipedia process works. For a controversial move, we do retain the status quo until and suchtime as a consensus emerges otherwise. And there's no distinction on Wikipedia between people who "know about chess" or otherwise. All decisions are based on reliable sources. So your choice is either to start an RM discussion, presenting the necessary evidence of why your version or any other version is the correct one, or to remain with the present name. Up to you.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MaxBrowne2.

This seems rather heavy-handed when the two things that all commentators seem united on are (a) that 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' is massively preferable to 'Larsen's Opening' and (b) that articles on Wikipedia combining the names of two persons should be linked with an ndash (as is common practice on other Wikipedia chess pages).

Given that the WP:RM guidelines state that a single autoconfirmed user can use the Move function' under 'being bold' as long as there is no reason to expect dispute, I really don't see why Amakaru is taking this course of action.

Compared to the genuinely significant change from 'Larsen's Opening' to 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack', it is only really a minor issue of taste whether to prefer:

Title: 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' / First sentence: '..usually abbreviated to Nimzo-Larsen Attack'

or

Title: 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' / First sentence: '...abbreviated from Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack'.

The former is evidently more formal, as per IHTS's opinion, and the latter has the significant weight of more recent usage in chess literature, as per my opinion - but I agree 100% with MaxBrowne2 that putting that rather nuanced point to the entire editorship of Wikipedia would be rather pointless (and unnecessary under the guidelines, as above).

All that needs to happen here is for the article title to be changed to 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack' and then all are happy (especially if the search term 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' would then go directly to the 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack' page rather than going via a re-direct page). Axad12 (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Amakaru, you seem to think that something about this change is 'controversial', can you not now see that you are simply wrong in that regard? Axad12 (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For example, I've said on several occasions in this thread that although I prefer 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' I'm fine with the concept of 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' being the title of the article. Meanwhile, user IHTS has said he would consider 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' basically okay but would prefer 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen'. So, let's not make the mistake of interpreting two people putting their opinions in an occasionally rather forthright way as though it were some sort of 'controversy'. Axad12 (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to tell a Go player or a paleontologist or a historian for that matter how they should or shouldn't name their articles, or what conventions they should or shouldn't use. We've had people try to tell us we're not allowed to capitalise opening names like King's Gambit or that we can't use the fraction "½", because supposedly some MOS point or some random WP:TLA they pull out of their hat trumps centuries of orthographic practice. So excuse us if we don't want to throw this decision open to people who have no idea what they're talking about. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

My first move was to look this up in MCO-13, MCO-15, BCO, and NCO. MCO-13 distinguishes between the Nimzowitsch Attack and Larsen's Opening. MCO-15 only has a section for Larsen's Opening, but notes that Nimzowitsch began with 1.Nf3. BCO and NCO use Nimzowitsch-Larsen Opening consistently.

As a matter of fact, I contributed the section on "Miscellaneous Flank Openings", including both Nimzowitsch and Larsen, to MCO-13, 30+ years ago, but I don't remember where I got the two opening names, and I am not attached to them. Probably I was looking at existing opening booklets, such as those by Chess Digest or Chess Enterprises, but who knows. Articles about famous games with these variations, such as one of the Petrosian-Fischer games, may also have been influential. Also, of course, I am sure that DeFirmian (and Korn) had their fingerprints on the choice of names for the variations. It looks to me like MCO-15, which came out around 2010, might be the last of that line, but it will be influential in American opening theory writing for years to come. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, that's interesting given that every dedicated book on the opening has always called it 'Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack' (Keene, 1977) or 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' (books by Odessky (x2), Lakdawala, and Jacobs & Tait, all post 2000). There's never any 'official' name, of course, for a chess opening, but do MCO etc consciously plough their own furrow and ignore the specialist texts, or is this a US vs Europe issue (BCO & NCO being British), or is there something else at work?

When MCO-15 was published back in 2010 the only two recent specialist texts on this opening would have been 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' (Jacobs & Tait 2001) and 'Play 1.b3: The Nimzo-Larsen Attack' (Odessky 2008), and those two books would presumably have been consulted(?).

Also, have you any feeling on what you think the article here should be called?

I'm not overly troubled about the exact name but, as I said at the start of the thread, I think there's a strong consensus in the specialist texts that post 2000 the name 'N-L Attack' (in some form) has been the umbrella term for both 1.b3 and 1.Nf3/2.b3. Axad12 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I have forgotten what I looked through for MCO-13. Looking at Amazon right now, I see that a book about Larsen's Opening, by Bill Wall, was published by Chess Enterprises in 1986; and a book about Larsen's Opening, by Andrew Soltis, was published by Chess Digest in 1972. More recently, there is a self-published book, from 2022, available in paperback and Kindle, called Larsen's Opening Tactics, by Lyudmil Tsvetkov.

It's not obvious to me that one name is better than the other or more suitable for use by Wikipedia. Of course, there should be the usual horde of redirects so that readers looking for one name can find the other. Also, the article should be internally consistent. Other than that, I have no special advice. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce, always interested to hear of books I wasn't previously aware of. You've inspired me to have a look in a couple of general openings books and see what they call this opening.

Fine's 'Ideas behind the Chess Openings' (1943) describes 1.Nf3 2.b3 as the 'Nimzowitsch Attack' (he doesn't seem to cover 1.b3).

Van der Sterren's 'Fundamental Chess Openings' (FCO, 2009) says (re: 1.b3 and 1.Nf3/2.b3) that '...the name Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack has been widely used. Larsen himself jokingly called 1.b3 the Baby Orang Utan'.

Also, since I happen to have it to hand, Karsten Muller's 2009 book of Fischer's complete games uses the name Nimzo-Larsen Attack in the text but gives Larsen Attack in the 'ECO Openings Index' at the rear of the book. Axad12 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Logically speaking, since I don't think either name is more appropriate than the other, I would have objected to the move, if I had gotten into this discussion earlier. There has to be a good excuse for modifying the status quo, and we didn't have that here.

Now, the article has been moved, and moved back, twice, and as a result, there are some inconsistencies; for example, the title is "Larsen's Opening", but the first sentence doesn't say "Larsen's Opening". The most constructive thing for me to do would be to restore it to a more self-consistent state; I will try to get to that in the morning. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Bruce, In fairness there was (and is) a clear consensus that 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack' was significantly preferable to 'Larsen's Opening'. That was the opinion of IHTS, MaxBrowne2, Madzane and myself (and your opinion was that you don't think that one name is clearly favourable to another, so I'd have hoped that you'd have been happy to fall in with what everyone else thinks). The only very minor issue is that one of the name changes inadvertently used a hyphen rather than an ndash, but that was the result of an oversight rather than a disagreement and is now being used by Amakuru to suggest, entirely falsely, that the whole subject is a matter of 'controversy')

The most sensible way to resolve the inconsistency between the article title and the text would be to change the title back to 'Nimzowitsch(ndash)Larsen Attack', at which point all are basically happy. (Except for Amakuru, who disappeared after it was pointed out that he had entirely failed to understand the discussion and was very much in the wrong.)

(The version of events that I have presented above is also the view of IHTS who is contesting Amakuru's change here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests, so perhaps best to wait until that is resolved before taking any further action?) Axad12 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Bruce,

On the broader subject, re: sources using 'Larsen's Opening'...

I appreciate that you're quite attached to MCO, but it isn't the ultimate arbiter on the naming of chess openings. The only 21st century book you can cite which uses 'Larsen's Opening' in the title appears (from the Amazon preview) to be self-published, in which case it wouldn't fall under WP:RS anyway.

The last dedicated book on the opening which used the name 'Larsen's Opening' in its title (and which conforms to WP:RS) would seem to be Bill Wall's book from 1986, almost 40 years ago. Since then, every book on the subject calls it the 'Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack'. Surely that is telling us something about what this opening is called in the 21st century?

It seems reasonable to suggest that chess publishers, when considering the name they will give to a book, opt for the one which will have the greatest recognition amongst potential buyers. That being the case, the correct name for this article is surely quite clear... Axad12 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

With the exception that publishers don't care or even probably know the diff between hyphen & ndash, as I pointed out to Amakuru at the Technical Moves page. With that said let me clarify that my involvement in this Talk discussion has only been to guide the title form if/when there was a push for a name change, as opposed to being an editor proposing the title s/b changed. Am really neutral on changing title or not; therefore, am comfortable w/ the orig "Larsen's Opening" (in fact, Hooper & Whyld in OCC p. 216 represent as "Larsen Opening" instead of the possessive form). But am just as comfortable w/ a title change consistent w/ Keene's book, "Nimzowitsch/Larsen Attack", which translates to ndash when MoS'd. In summary, the only apparent controversy on the title change is Bruce's latest reluctance, and as already stated, am comfortable w/ that too and am in fact neutral. --IHTS (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that Nimzo-Larsen (or indeed Nimzowitsch-Larsen), regardless of ndash or hyphen, was the publishers' choice over Larsen's Opening and clearly represents common usage.

I agree with you that publishers are indifferent over ndash vs hyphen, but I would rather that that didn't derail changing the article to 'N-L Attack' (in some form) from the now rather obscure 'Larsen's Opening'. Axad12 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's an attempt to build an agreed consensus on how we should proceed.

The predominance of books on this subject clearly indicates that N-L Attack (in some form) is preferable to Larsen's Opening.

The full name of the opening is 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack', which should be spelt with an ndash (as per Caro-Kann), and, as noted above, GM van der Sterren has said in writing that this full name 'has been widely used'. However, it is also apparent that it has also been commonly abbreviated to 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack'.

As has been noted by Amakuru (in the discussion elsewhere re: the title change) and myself (here) 'Nimzo-Larsen' looks better with a hyphen, for consistency with Nimzo-Indian Defence.

Hence:

Article title = Nimzowitsch[ndash]Larsen Attack.

First Sentence says 'The Nimzowitsch[ndash]Larsen Attack (commonly abbreviated to Nimzo[hyphen]Larsen Attack)...'

Admittedly this is nobody's ideal solution, but can we agree that this is better than sticking with 'Larsen's Opening', which evidently hasn't been in common usage since the 1980s.

After all, even if we stick with 'Larsen's Opening', none of these issues are actually avoided because the names 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' and 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' will both have to appear in the article somewhere in some form.

So, how does the suggestion above look as a compromise solution? Axad12 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack. There were two main areas of dispute in this RM: which name is the WP:COMMONNAME for this opening, and whether a hyphen or an en dash would be more appropriate for separating the two names in the proposed title.

• Based on the sources presented in this RM, I see a definite consensus that "Larsen's Opening" has ceased to be the COMMONNAME, and that modern sources typically use names that mention both Nimzowitsch and Larsen. However, the sources that were presented diverged on whether "Nimzowitsch-Larsen" or "Nimzo-Larsen" had become the most common name in its place. From my read of the discussion, it seems that the "Nimzowitsch-Larsen" title has the strongest claim to COMMONNAME status; the sources presented showed that it has been in use for longer than "Nimzo-Larsen", and yet that it still retained frequent usage in recent publications.
• The hyphen-vs.-dash debate came down to one primary argument on each side: hyphen proponents argued that hyphen-based spellings were the WP:COMMONNAME, whereas dash proponents pointed to the MOS guidance in MOS:ENBETWEEN. With neither argument appearing markedly stronger than the other on its merits, I have chosen to prefer the hyphen, as WP:COMMONNAME is (part of) a policy whereas the MOS is a guideline.

For these reasons, I believe that Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack is the title that best reflects the consensus of this discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Larsen's Opening → Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack (Alternatives: → Nimzo-Larsen Attack or → Nimzo–Larsen Attack) – WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources (WP:CHESSOPENINGS) and more WP:PRECISE ↓ SilverLocust 💬 11:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This article covers a pair of related hypermodern chess openings preparing a queenside fianchetto:

• 1.Nf3 ... 2.b3 ................... (e.g., Nimzowitsch vs Spielmann, New York 1927), and
• 1.b3 ................................. (e.g., Larsen vs. Eley, 1972).

Based on the discussions so far in the section above, the current title is not suitable because

1. It is a less common name in reliable sources on the subject, as mentioned above. (See also WikiProject Chess's WP:CHESSOPENINGS about why chess books are preferable to online sources.)
2. It is not as WP:PRECISE a title for the article, as it may refer specifically to the latter opening by Larsen (1.b3).

Alternatively, this name is frequently shortened as Nimzo-Larsen Attack (like the Nimzo-Indian Defence) or Nimzo–Larsen Attack (with an en-dash instead of a hyphen, since it connects the names of two different people) (see MOS:NDASH). For more information, see the discussions above this request. @Axad12, MaxBrowne2, Ihardlythinkso, Amakuru, and Bruce leverett. SilverLocust 💬 11:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Chess has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 11:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Nimzo-Larsen Attack. This is the most common name in sources, with Nimzowitsch not spelled out in full, and a hyphen rather than a dash. Regarding the hyphen issue, if this were a descriptive title then using a dash would be correct. However, it is not a descriptive title, it is a full title case proper name, and as such we go with what the sources say. Using a dash on this name rather than a hyphen is not found in any source. I was hopeful that Axad12 and IHTS would agree to this title up front and avoid the need for an RM. I'm still happy to move directly to Nimzo-Larsen Attack if everyone's in agreement.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  You've got that backwards. (A descriptive title w/ require MOS:HYPHEN, e.g. "Nimzo-Indian Defence" employs a descriptive modifier; a "full title case proper name" w/ require MOS:NDASH.) --IHTS (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  By "descriptive title" I mean one that is not a proper name. For example, Hungarian withdrawal from the European Union. This title is in sentence case, and describes the event, effectively in WP:WIKIVOICE, rather than being a universally accepted proper name. Conversely, something like American Civil War is a proper name, fully capitalised, and would be rendered as-is. The latter scenario applies to Nimzo-Larsen Attack. It is in title case (hence Attack rather than attack), and hence is determined to be a proper name and must be rendered as sources render it. I haven't found a single one that uses a dash. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am even a little uncertain about what the prescriptively correct style would be for Nimzo-Larsen Attack. Nimzo- could be seen as a sort of prefixed version of Nimzowitsch. For example, there is "France–Germany relations" (dash for two full nouns) and "Franco-German relations" (hyphen for prefix form). So I am fine with the prevailing style (hyphen). SilverLocust 💬 13:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I had recently been thinking about 'Franco-Prussian War' and pondered the same point. Axad12 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Prussian" is an adjective; "Larsen" is not. Your logic fails. --IHTS (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness, I said that I had "pondered the same point", not that I had "arrived at the same conclusion". If I'd reached the same conclusion I'd have stated it at a much earlier stage in the original thread. My conclusion was that the issue was unclear, so I was inclined to opt for 'Nimzo[hyphen]Larsen' as being similar in form to 'Nimzo-Indian'. I understand your grounds for disagreeing with this approach. Axad12 (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Franco" is an adjective, modifying "relations", and in this case "German" is also being used as adjective, ala "German food". "Larsen" is not an adjective, the conjoined "Nimzowitsch–Larson" modifies "Attack". You're drawing wrong conclusions. --IHTS (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  Re rendering hyphen or ndash "as sources render it", first, your sources are publishers who don't know or care the difference, and second, those publisher sources don't follow Wikipedia MoS guidelines, they follow their own in-house publishing rules, which again probably ignore or are completely incognizant of any diff between a hyphen and dash in a title. Your argument fails. --IHTS (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Move to Nimzo-Larsen Attack. It seems to me that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' has featured in the title of every WP:RS book about this opening since Wall's 1986 book 'Larsen's Opening'. I therefore agree that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' represents the WP:COMMONNAME.

I also agree that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' is more WP:PRECISE as all of those books (Jacobs & Tait, Odessky, Lakdawala) use the term to refer to both the 1.b3 and 1.Nf3/1.b3 move orders, whereas 'Larsen's Opening' only ever referred to the 1.b3 move order.

There are also plenty of other (more general) openings books which use the name 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' (e.g chapters in Dunnington's Winning Unorthodox Openings, Palliser's Beating Unusual Chess Openings, etc.).

I favour 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' spelt with a hyphen (rather than an ndash) for consistency with 'Nimzo-Indian Defence'.

I am less in favour of 'Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack' because it hasn't been used as the title of a book on the opening since Keene's 1977 book, but I would still view it as preferable to 'Larsen's Opening'. Axad12 (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

In Nimzo-Indian, "Nimzo" modifies, is a modifier of, "Indian". "Nimzo" is not and cannot be a modifier of "Larsen". In "Nimzo–Larsen Attack", the conjoined "Nimzo–Larsen" modifies "Attack". Your logic fails. Plus you're already on record for pushing your own-rolled personal MoS where ndash is eliminated on Wikipedia, as some sort of WP MoS rebellion. Last, will you next want to replace ndash w/ hyphen in "Caro–Kann Defence", and a myriad of others, because that follows from your reasoning. --IHTS (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Caro-Kann Defence is also hyphenated in absolutely all sources known to humanity, so yes it should also be hyphenated rather than dashed. Indeed, it was hyphenated prior to an undiscussed move in 2012. Wikipedia has a house style, but it never just makes stuff up out of thin air.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

How is following the WP:MOS making "stuff up out of thin air"?!? (Have you ever even read MOS:NDASH? And in support of my assertion that publishers have their own house rules but probably don't know or care the difference between a hyphen and a dash, I'm holding book Fischer–Spassky 1992 in my hands, it uses ndash without spaces on the front cover, a hyphen on the spine, and an ndash with spaces on the title page. Trying to draw conclusions from what publishers use (re punc like hyphen versus ndash) is neither useful nor informative.) --IHTS (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, you're just plain wrong. Hooper & Whyld, who, unlike others, pay attention to the difference (see below where they corrected "Nimzowitsch-Indian" to "Nimzowitsch–Indian" in subsequent edition of The Oxford Companion to Chess), use ndash: "Caro–Kann Defence". --IHTS (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

IHTS, you know very well that that's not what I said, the comment you're referring to, made by me on the 22nd, was trying (unsuccessfully) to find a pragmatic way forward in this particular case (as I said in that comment - "on this occasion" only). I was not suggesting that it would be more broadly applicable or that ndash should be removed from Wikipedia.

I've also said on numerous occasions above that I have no problem with the title being 'Nimzowitsch[ndash]Larsen Attack'. I even went out of my way to ask MaxBrowne2 to revert the title to include an ndash. And I have stated repeatedly that if that was the form taken (consistent with Caro[ndash]Kann), then I believed that everyone would be basically happy.

However, I'm not convinced that Nimzo-Larsen Attack takes an ndash. As I said above, the situation seemed unclear and capable of argument either way - an impression that the discussion here is doing little to dispel. Axad12 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't agree with IHTS that the Nimzo in 'Nimzo-Indian Defence' is a modifier. The derivation of that name is from 'Nimzowitsch Indian Defence', as pointed out (with several examples) in the original discussion. Hooper & Whyld, for example, state in the Oxford Companion to Chess that 'The name is a contraction of Nimzowitsch-Indian'. In that regard the Nimzo-element is identical to that in the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, an abbreviation. (The same could be said for the Bogo-Indian, which is also a contraction from the original 'Bogoljubow Indian'). Any suggestion that the formulation of 'Nimzo-Indian' is comparable to, say, Neo-Grunfeld, is therefore incorrect. Axad12 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No they're not identical. ("Larsen" is a named person; "Indian" is not. You're comparing apples to oranges and simultaneously throwing Wikipedia MoS out the window out of personal preference. And you keep repeating arguments previously answered, e.g. Bruce has picked up on that and refused to repeat himself.) I agree w/ Hooper & Whyld re that "Nimzo-Indian" is a contraction. A contraction takes a hyphen. (Incidentally, look carefully in the OCCs: in the 1987 OCC they print "Nimzowitsch-Indian", using hyphen. But in the 1992 edition they corrected this, printing: "The name is a contraction of Nimzowitsch–Indian", using ndash. This was clearly an intentional correction.) --IHTS (talk) 05:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say, as I've said before, that I'm perfectly happy for Nimzowitsch-Larsen (or, indeed, at a push, Nimzo-Larsen) to be spelt with an ndash. However, my feeling is that the really important issue at stake here is the desirability of installing 'N*L Attack' (in some form) as the appropriate name for this article (and opening complex) in preference to 'Larsen's Opening'. This is obviously in accordance with modern practice re: 21st century books on the subject.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the subject of ndash re: chess publishers generally not using it, probably out of ignorance or disinterest.

I'm prepared to compromise on what seems to me to be a relatively minor matter of taste (hyphen or ndash in 'Nimzo*Larsen'). Are you prepared to join the majority of people here who want to switch the article title from 'Larsen's Opening'? Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

As said, am neutral, comfortable w/ either. The hyphen vs. ndash deal was made part of the package, however, which explains my posts. p.s. It's not a "matter of taste", rather a matter of WP:MOS. --IHTS (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've explained already why an ndash is not appropriate here. The MOS does not say to make up things out of thin air, as you're proposing here.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Read MOS:NDASH. You're the one making up your own things out of thin air. Have been more than specific while you've been basically non-responsive. And your antagonizing comment appended to my reply to Asad12 above is not appropriate here; apparently you don't even know how to use Talk threads appropriately. Leave me alone! --IHTS (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The above proposal specifies "Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack", but both !votes so far specify "Nimzo-Larsen Attack". I do not know how this discrepancy should be handled. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now edited the opening line to include the alternatives. It's not unusual for a move request to result in a different move than the main one initially suggested. (And in RMs the proposal counts as a !vote too.) SilverLocust 💬 04:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: For the benefit of editors who are not familiar with the chess milieu, chess openings sometimes have multiple names. Among the more popular openings, the Ruy Lopez is also called the Spanish game, while the Petroff defense is also called the Russian opening. Individual variations often have multiple names, with the variation being regional; for example, what is called the Wilkes-Barre variation in the United States is called the Traxler counter-attack, or Traxler variation, in some other countries. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Retain current name (Larsen's Opening). It is not an unsatisfactory title. It meets WP:CRITERIA. It was used in the title of a book about this opening by grandmaster Andrew Soltis (1972), and other books by lesser players. It is used in some chess opening references, notably MCO (15th edition), and chess encyclopedias, such as the Oxford Companion to Chess (1996).

The fact that some books more recent than that by Soltis use a different name doesn't prevent Larsen's Opening from meeting WP:CRITERIA. Arguing that this makes the different name more suitable for Wikipedia is just WP:RECENTISM. If someone comes along next year and writes another book about Larsen's opening, do we then have to change the name back to Larsen's Opening? Obviously not.

When an opening or a variation has multiple names, a Wikipedia article about it should mention those names, and there should be redirects that implement those names. In this case both "Nimzo-Larsen Attack", which is used in several books, and "Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack", which is used in some opening references (BCO and NCO), should be given this treatment.

The article is about 1.b3. However, many games lead into this opening "by transposition", i.e. by another move order, such as 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 or 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3. Nimzowitsch himself only played these two transpositions. These circumstances are not important in naming the article, but they should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Dedicated chess openings literature has only been going for about 50 years and for the great majority of that period (e.g. since 1977) the terms Nimzowitsch-Larsen and (particularly) Nimzo-Larsen have been dominant (as in, they feature in the title of every WP:RS book on the subject except for Wall 1986). That is not WP:RECENTISM.

And if a book was published next year calling the opening 'Larsen's Opening' then, no, it wouldn't change the fact that Nimzo-Larsen is clearly the long established WP:COMMONNAME.

Re: your other point, you only have to look at the titles of the great majority of specialist works on 1.b3/1.Nf3 2.b3 to see that the term 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' is applied to both of these move orders and not only to 1.Nf3/2.b3. Or maybe take a look inside some of those books and satisfy yourself on that point (previews are no doubt available on chess booksellers' websites, or on Amazon).

Incidentally, which are these 'other works by lesser players' (i.e. not Soltis) that you mention? Previously you only mentioned Bill Wall's book from 1986, plus the recent self-published book that didn't conform to WP:RS.

Surely it tells you everything you need to know that the only book since 1986 to title itself 'Larsen's Opening' was self-published? Axad12 (talk) 06:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate for me to attempt a point-by-point rebuttal since I would be repeating myself. But let me offer a couple of corrections.

"Dedicated chess openings literature" goes back to Lucena. The first edition of MCO was published in 1911.

The fact that the Oxford Companion to Chess doesn't mention Nimzo-Larsen suggests that one cannot call it a WP:COMMONNAME. I think it is clear from our earlier exchanges that there just is no universally accepted name for this group of variations.

The article title policy, which we were instructed to adhere to, starts as follows:

Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.

When this article was first created, in 2005, most of the books that now call the variation "Nimzo-Larsen" didn't exist yet.

Again citing the article title policy, the characteristics of a good title are Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, and Consistency. "Larsen's Opening" has all these characteristics. I would say that the age of the Soltis book gives its title more Recognizability, not less. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Bruce's idea that Soltis’ 1972 title ‘Larsen’s Opening’ represents some kind of line in the sand and everything else is just WP: RECENTISM…

There are many examples in chess where the common name of an opening from the 1970s, 80s or 90s has been overturned.

For example, Soltis write a book in 1993 called ‘Beating the Sicilian Defence with the Short-Nunn Attack’. The universal name for that variation is now, of course, 'English Attack’, and Wikipedia correctly reflects that. The situation with Larsen's Opening being surpassed by Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack is identical.

By way of further proof, here is a list of all WP:RS books either specifically about this opening(*), or with lengthy chapters devoted to it (**), along with the names that they use to refer to 1.b3/1.Nf3 2. b3:

1972 - Soltis (*) - Larsen's Opening

1977 - Keene (*) - Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack

1986 - Wall (*) - Larsen's Opening

1998 - Dunnington (**) - Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack

2001 - Jacobs & Tait (*) - Nimzo-Larsen Attack

2006 - Palliser (**) - Nimzo-Larsen Attack

2008 - Odessky (*) - Nimzo-Larsen Attack

2013 - Lakdawala (*) - Nimzo-Larsen Attack

Bruce is aware of these books, and knows that the use of ‘Larsen’s Opening’ at the head of 3 pages of analysis in ‘MCO’ doesn't trump the picture above. He's just digging in his heels to try to prevent a consensus - in order to preserve a situation where Wikipedia usage reflects MCO usage (MCO was very out of date on this point when the most recent edition was published in 2010).

Presumably he's adopting this rather eccentric course because he wrote the relevant section in an earlier edition of MCO and is now fighting a rear-guard action to preserve an out of date name. Axad12 (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Bruce, our recent posts crossed. To address your new points...

Opening literature may go back to Lucena, or (to continue your obsession with MCO) to 1911, but Larsen only started playing this opening in 1968. Presumably you're not claiming that the opening was called Larsen's Opening prior to this date? Similarly, presumably you're not claiming that if an opening was called one thing from say 1820-1960 but another thing from 1960 onwards then the original name is correct and the newer title is WP:RECENTISM.

The entry for this opening in all editions of Hooper & Whyld retains the first edition text of 1984. The fact that it was not updated in subsequent versions (the most recent of which is now very old) should not be taken as a proxy for Hooper & Whyld representing modern usage over the last 2 to 3 decades.

Re: your claim that previous discussions suggest there is no consensus, presumably it has escaped you that the everyone who has expressed a preference on this talk page back to 2008 favours Nimzo- or Nimzowitsch- Larsen (myself, MaxBrowne2, Madzane, Amakuru, SilverLocust) except for you.

As you say, back in 2005 when this page was created some of the texts listed above did not exist. However, now they do exist, and can be added to the pre-2005 texts which took a similar stance. Or are you adopting the view that all books post 2005 don't count? Axad12 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

(And when I said earlier that 'dedicated openings literature' only went back about 50 years I was obviously referring to books 'dedicated' to particular openings.) Axad12 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

As a footnote here...

In a discussion about what the modern established name for a subject is, if one contributor is going to vote in a way which (he openly admits) disregards the titles and contents of every book published on the subject in the 21st century, I think one has to seriously consider whether he is in breach of the policy on WP: STONEWALLING for the status quo.

For example, it is obviously a junk argument to claim, as he does, that the title of Soltis 1972 (a 44-page staple-bound pamphlet) is 'more recognizable' in modern times than the titles of every book published on the subject since 1986.

The continued suggestion that (selected) 20th century sources (usually from the 70s and 80s) have priority over the united front taken by 21st century books on the subject would be very firmly rejected in any similar discussion. Axad12 (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It is quite unreasonable to accuse me of WP:STONEWALLING since my !vote was the last. I made what I thought was a "substantive rationale based on policy". As far as discussion is concerned, no one else has shown up since then, except yourself, and you have just been repeating points already made. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The reason for repetition is that you consistently avoid addressing the central point re: your false claim that 'Nimzo(witsch)*Larsen' is WP: RECENTISM.

The policy states that recentism 'is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events' e.g. 'edit warring over whether to change an article's well-established title [...] on the basis of (wordings) used on breaking news sources'.

The publication of all the various books on this subject since 1986 constitutes neither 'recent events' nor 'breaking news', as you well know. Nor does it constitute any other interpretation of WP: RECENTISM.

All throughout this discussion you have evaded responding to straightforward objections - why not actually answer the point? You said every dedicated book since 1986 was 'just WP: RECENTISM', either back up the statement with reference to the policy or withdraw it. Axad12 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the reason for accusing you of stonewalling isn't because you voted last, it's because the arguments you've put forward are demonstrably false and misrepresent Wikipedia policy.

For example, if your central argument isn't entirely bogus, share with us some examples of other Wikipedia articles (chess or otherwise) where the titles used ignore the titles and content of every book written on those subjects since 1986 (or 2000 if that makes it easier).

Any that you find will be exceptionally low traffic articles where no one has previously bothered to object (as is the case here), which is hardly a definition of a 'well-established title'. Axad12 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack. This is by far the prevalent name in chess literature since the 1970s. Fifty years of practice is hardly "recentism", and insistence on retaining the current title does look like resistance to change, status quo for the sake of the status quo, even (dare I say it) stonewalling. I prefer a hyphen to an n-dash because this is what people are actually going to type when they're searching for the article, but that's not a hill I'll die on. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  A redirect w/ hyphen supports that (for e.g. the redirects Caro-Kann Defence, Smith-Morra Gambit, Richter-Veresov Attack, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation, Richter-Rauzer Attack, etc). --IHTS (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  I do not object to your calling this "status quo for the sake of status quo". Earlier in this discussion (before the formal requested move was begun), I wrote, "There has to be a good excuse for modifying the status quo, and we didn't have that here." You may translate that to "status quo for the sake of status quo".

  From WP:MOVE, one of the reasons for renaming an article is, "The subject of the article has changed its name and the new name has come into majority use." But obviously we do not have that here. 1. b3 is still commonly referred to as Larsen's Opening, for instance in this eminently citable news article from 2023. Of course it is also sometimes referred to as the Nimzo-Larsen, and I grant that some of the books published under that name are highly regarded. Evidently, as I mentioned earlier, this opening always had more than one name, and it still has more than one name. Policy does not dictate what to do in this situation, but it does not prescribe that we need to rename the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Seems to me that you're rather missing the point here. While there are still some people who refer to 1.b3 as Larsen's Opening, the subject of the Wikipedia article is the opening complex 1.b3/1.Nf3 2.b3. Treating these move orders as a complex is how the subject is routinely treated in modern books, and the name for this complex used in those books is the Nimzo-Larsen Attack.

  There are plenty of people (including book authors) who refer to 1.b3 as the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, but there are no people who refer to 1.Nf3 2.b3 as Larsen's Opening. Thus 'Larsen's Opening' is - at best - only the name applied to a subset of the subject under consideration in this article. Axad12 (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  When writing about openings, one normally will try to handle transpositions in the least confusing way. Thus, in any given book, or any given article, positions arising from 1.b3 2.Nf3 are discussed the same, under the same name, as positions arising from 1.Nf3 2.b3.

  Here is an article, analyzing a game between Nakamura and Mamedyarov, in which the game begins with 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3, and the commentator holds off choosing the name of the opening until move 5. He writes, "This looks similar to Larsen's Opening, however it turns out to be different." After 2.. d5 3.Bb2 c5 4.e3 Nc5 5.d4, he writes, "A Queen Pawn Game. 5.Bb5 would have transposed to Larsen's Opening." Bruce leverett (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Well done for finding a single article to that effect, but it hardly changes the fact that every dedicated book on the subject since 1986 calls 1.b3/1.Nf3 2.b3 the Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack.

  I'm not sure we really want to go too far down the rabbit hole of considering one-off examples of what names might be given to rare chess openings by individual online chess journalists. (Although I can see why someone in your position would need to do so.) Axad12 (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As a side-note to WP:COMMONNAME, if one went to any major tmt and asked 100 chessplayers to "Show me Larsen's Opening", my guess is 95% w/ point to White's move 1.b3. If on the other hand they were asked to "Show me Nimzovitsch–Larsen Attack" (or "Nimzo–Larsen Attack"), my guess is at least 50% w/ return a puzzled look. (But I could be wrong of course.) --IHTS (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  If that's the case (which I'd suggest it is not, but it it were), how would you explain the clear preference exhibited by authors (universally IMs and GMs) and their publishers in the 21st century for 'Nimzo(witsch)*Larsen Attack'? I agree with you that publishers may be disinterested or ignorant of the hyphen vs ndash situation, but I'd credit them with having a working knowledge of their target audience and which book titles they are more likely to respond to and recognise. I'd suggest it is highly unlikely that publishers like Everyman and New In Chess would regularly use titles where 'at least 50% [of chess players] w/ return a puzzled look' and not be aware what the book was about. Axad12 (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's mixing topics that aren't necessarily related or connected, so w/ be illogical to try to "explain it". My guesses stand as-is. --IHTS (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Of course personal speculation on how some hypothetical random chess player would react if you mentioned the "Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack" to them isn't really relevant. I'm pretty sure even if they knew it as the Larsen Opening or Nimzowitsch Opening or Baby Orangutan they'd know what you're talking about... but that's just my personal speculation about a random hypothetical chess player. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  Right, but the thought experiment wasn't re one player but a survey of 100 players (supporting "COMMONNAME" recognition). --IHTS (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest, re: common name I suspect that there may be an age-related angle at stake here and a US vs Rest of the World angle.

  US players old enough to have remembered Soltis 1972 and Wall 1986 (both by US publishers/authors) are presumably more likely to respond to 'Larsen's Opening'. UK/Commonwealth readers of a similar age are perhaps more likely to respond to 'N-L Attack', from the title of Keene 1977 (publisher/author both from the UK).

  In more recent decades, however, it would be difficult to make a case for such a divide, as all the books on this subject use the term 'N-L Attack' and are by Everyman-UK or New In Chess-Netherlands (and by writers from UK, US and Russia), so regardless of where in the world a reader may be, the books with 'N-L Attack' titles will have been the primary reference points.

  This may explain why most commentators here seem to think the issue is relatively open and shut, but US commentators capable of remembering Soltis 1972 and Wall 1986 do not.

  I may be wrong, just putting this out there as an idea... Axad12 (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  May I constructively suggest that you're adding too much unnecessary text to this discussion? You don't need to reply to everything. See WP:BLUDGEON. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  To be honest I thought it was a valid new contribution - but I do take your general point. Axad12 (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would concur with IHTS's estimates of 95% and 50%, but of course, I would hesitate to use seat-of-the-pants estimates in a serious discussion like this one.

  The idea that there might be a regional bias, such that it's called "Larsen's Opening" in the U.S. and "Nimzo-Larsen" elsewhere, occurred to me. If that were really the case, I might facetiously suggest that MOS:RETAIN would be applicable. But Lakdawala is an American, while André Schulz, whom I linked to above, is European, not to mention the author of the self-published book from 2022. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep Larsen's Opening per user Bruce leverett. Though am comfortable w/ the proposed name, insufficient policy-based rationale for a title change. --IHTS (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move to Nimzo-Larsen Attack, second choice move as proposed to Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack; opposed to keeping the status quo. COMMONNAME suggests that "Larsen's Opening" is the rarer form of referring to this opening, and an outdated one. SnowFire (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Let's look at a few more recent sources:
  • John Watson, Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4 (2010) has an eight-page section titled "Larsen's Opening: 1 b3", although the first sentence describes 1.b3 as "sometimes known as Larsen's Opening, or the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack."
  • Nigel Davies, Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack (2012) is a ChessBase DVD rather than a book, but I would still consider ChessBase videos reliable sources.
  • Bent Larsen, Bent Larsen's Best Games (2014) does not have a dedicated chapter on 1.b3, but presents five of his games with it, which he calls "Nimzowitsch/Larsen Opening".
  • Viktor Mikhalevski, Grandmaster Repertoire 19: Beating Minor Openings (2016) has a twenty-page chapter on "Larsen's Opening".
  • Wesley So, My Secret Weapon: 1.b3 (2018) is another ChessBase DVD. So just refers to the opening as 1.b3.
  • Ilya Odessky, Winning Quickly with 1.b3 and 1...b6 (2020) also just calls the opening 1.b3, as far as I can tell.
  • Adhiban Baskaran, Lifetime Repertoires: 1. b3 (2021) is a Chessable course by one of the world's leading exponents of the opening. I believe Adhiban usually just speaks of 1.b3, but occasionally he does say "Nimzo-Larsen".

  The last three entries accord with my personal experience that for most of White's first moves, algebraic notation (e4, d4, b3, etc.) is more recognizable and more frequently used in the vernacular than any particular name, the exceptions being the English, Bird and Grob. For more examples of this, listen to this Richard Rapport interview or look at Baadur Jobava's personal website – both 2700-rated players like Adhiban that specialize in 1.b3. So really this debate has been about establishing the second most recognizable name. It's a rather pedantic exercise.

  I think it's fair to say that within the last thirty years, crediting both Nimzowitsch and Larsen is more common than only crediting Larsen. But the contraction "Nimzo–Larsen" is not yet fully standard. It certainly isn't as well established as the name Nimzo-Indian. I would be OK with either not moving the article ("Larsen's Opening" does have the advantage of concision), or moving it to Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack. Cobblet (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing some extra sources here.

  A few points on the usage of ‘1.b3’ in the recent sources you mention…

  In Baskaran’s case, while making 16 hours plus of video footage I think we may be able to guess why he usually preferred ‘b3’ to ‘Nimzo-Larsen Attack’. Whether that usage would be mirrored by chess players (or Baskaran) in general conversation, is perhaps less clear.

  According to Chessbase, on So's DVD he frequently uses 1.b3 as a transpositional tool to reach other openings and he explains that this is why he called the DVD ‘1.b3’ rather than ‘Nimzo-Larsen Attack’.

  Odessky’s book is called ‘Winning Quickly with 1.b3 and 1…b6’, which is a rather snappier title than ‘Winning Quickly with the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, Owen’s Defence and the English Defence’. However, Nimzo-Larsen Attack and English Defence are the names that Odessky uses in his books covering those openings individually.

  To be honest I wonder if you are taking the titles of these three Baskaran/So/Odessky works rather too literally and ignoring some issues around these authors’ broader usage. On the question of whether 'Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack' or 'Larsen's Opening' is to be preferred, the 3 recent authors you quote are actually firmly united in favour of 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack'. Axad12 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  I should've been more clear: Odessky's recent book does not use any of the terms Nimzo-Larsen, Owen’s or English Defence anywhere in the book, as far as I can tell after having skimmed the entire book. So no, I am not just looking at the titles. The idea that all writers consistently use "Nimzo-Larsen Attack" today is false: Watson, Larsen, Mikhalevski, and even Odessky in his most recent book do not. (See also the ChessPublishing authors discussed below.) "Snappiness" (i.e., concision) is indeed a reason to prefer "b3" to any other name, but it is also a reason to prefer Larsen's Opening to Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack.

  For more examples of how these terms have been used by professional players from 2010 to the present, look at ChessPublishing's Flank Openings section. Palliser (consistent with his 2006 book) and Bartholomew prefer Nimzo–Larsen Attack; but Davies (contrary to his ChessBase DVD), Fier, Kosten and Cummings prefer just Larsen's Opening.

  Other names also exist: Garry Kasparov in My Great Predecessors, Part IV (2004), which gives four games featuring Larsen and Fischer's 1.b3 experiments, calls it the "Larsen–Simagin Opening".

  I'm hesitant to give a firm opinion on which name I prefer, because it's not a clear-cut case either way; but so far, the more research I've done, the less I've been inclined to support moving the article. Statements that the name Larsen's Opening is "outdated" or that it will surprise "a great majority of players" are not borne out by the evidence on hand. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Re: Odessky's book, his title concisely expresses his concept of playing a queen's bishop fianchetto as both white and black. He uses no names for the openings at any stage, presumably because the book is primarily about the mechanics of tricks and traps, the themes of which are to some extent common to both b3 and b6 openings. However, when he does refer to 1.b3 by a name, as he does elsewhere in the title of his other book 'Play 1.b3: The Nimzo-Larsen Attack' it seems fairly clear which name he prefers.

  If we restrict ourselves to WP: RS sources where at least a chapter was dedicated to this opening, there only seem to have been three instances in the last 25 years where the term 'Larsen's Opening' was used (MCO, Watson and Mikhalevski, in each case for a single chapter, combined length 31 pages).

  However (and here is the critical point) in each case where the term 'Larsen's Opening' has been used it is only used to refer to 1.b3, which is only a subset of the material under consideration in this article. The modern usage, as shown by every book dedicated entirely to the subject, is clearly to refer to both 1.b3 and 1.Nf3/2.b3 as a single opening complex called the Nimzo-Larsen Attack. Axad12 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  If the argument all along has been that a 1980s opening name supposedly went obsolete 20 years later, it doesn't make sense to take Odessky's book in 2008 as conclusive evidence for what name he prefers today, given that more recent evidence (his book in 2020) suggests he prefers no name at all. In fact, I skimmed the text of Odessky's 2008 book, and it appears the term "Nimzo–Larsen" also does not appear anywhere in that book other than on the title page. Odessky's title is simply "Play 1.b3"; the subtitle "The Nimzo–Larsen Attack: A Friend for Life", which appears to be the single instance of "Nimzo–Larsen" in the 800+ pages Odessky has written on 1.b3, could easily have been an editorial addition.

  As for your "critical" point, every source quoted in this discussion that uses the term Larsen's Opening covers lines that can also be reached from the 1.Nf3/2.b3 move order. The 1.Nf3/2.b3 lines are a subset of all the lines that 1.b3 can lead to, while the opposite is not true. If you're trying to "win" this discussion, you're not going to do it by undermining your own credibility. Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Having just referred to Mikhalevski’s book, the chapter on Larsen’s Opening (pages 83-103) only covers 1.b3 e5 (as I said). The 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 lines are covered in a completely separate chapter (pages 257-274), and are not referred to as Larsen’s Opening. Watson only really covers 1.b3 e5 lines in his chapter on Larsen’s Opening (he covers 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 in a single paragraph on p127 with a couple of very brief lines that end, at the latest, at move 7). Be reasonable.

  However, re: your other point…

  Regardless of the merits of ‘1.b3’ as the name of this opening, it isn’t going to be the title of this article because algebraic notation is a non-encyclopaedic shorthand which isn’t used in the titles of Wikipedia articles. That’s why this debate is framed as ‘Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack or Larsen’s Opening’. I actually agree with you that ‘1.b3’ is becoming a recognisable alternative to those terms (and in many senses resolves all of the disagreements in this thread), but it isn’t an option on Wikipedia.

  You may be right that 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' was added to the title of Odessky 2008 as an editorial addition (although note that Odessky uses the term 'Nimzowitsch Attack' in the titles and content of chapters 21 and 22). If it was an editorial addition it was presumably added for the sake of clarity by somebody on the New in Chess editorial board, i.e. people whose opinion on this question is presumably not trivial to the issue at stake here. Axad12 (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  None of this changes the fact that Watson uses "Larsen's Opening" and "Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack" as equivalent names for 1.b3 specifically (see again his first sentence in that section, which I quoted previously), while Mikhalevski does not use the term Nimzo–Larsen at all. Watson restricts himself to looking at "a few of the more lively lines" (i.e., those beginning with 1.b3 e5) while describing "without serious analysis, just a few of the many other ways that play can develop" (i.e., lines where Black avoids an immediate ...e5); this has no bearing on what he thinks the opening is called. Mikhalevski's book is a repertoire book and the chapter on 1.b3 only covers 1...e5 simply because this is what he recommends Black play against 1.b3. But he also recommends 1...d5 and 1...Nf6 as responses to 1.Nf3, which are covered in different sections of the book, so coverage of 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 and 1.Nf3 Nf6 with a later b3 naturally goes in those sections. If Odessky has no need to say "Nimzo–Larsen" once in 800+ pages of text, let's forgive Mikhalevski for not labelling every transposition to a 1.b3 line as such.

  Ultimately, I remain indifferent to a page move. One might speculate that if the Wikipedia article hadn't been titled Larsen's Opening, fewer people would be using that name today. But the fact remains that usage has not disappeared. Just two months ago, David Cummings on ChessPublishing referred to both 1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Bg4 3.f3 Bh5 and 1.Nf3 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 c6 as Larsen's Opening. Cobblet (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  The titles and/or content of all the dedicated books and DVDs on this subject published this century use 'Nimzo(witsch)-Larsen Attack’, not 'Larsen's Opening'. (Except for Odessky's recent book, which only ever refers to '1.b3'.)

  Whenever there’s a name change request on Wikipedia (chess-related or otherwise), anyone prepared to spend 5 minutes on Google will be able to find some scattered references in non-dedicated texts where much rarer names than the common name are used. Also, perhaps, some forum posts, blog posts and online articles. It doesn't alter the bigger picture. E.g. you say 'usage of [Larsen's Opening] has not disappeared', but that isn't the threshold required to change an article name. Axad12 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Discounting or downright ignoring all the evidence that doesn't support your position (Wesley So's DVD, for instance) is the opposite of looking at the bigger picture. I think somebody who's familiar with chess openings is likely to recognize both names. Such people may come across material on 1.b3 anywhere, in print or online. Unless they happen to be interested in playing 1.b3 themselves, they're more likely to read opening encyclopedias like MCO and other generalist works than books dedicated to 1.b3. John Watson is one of the best-known American writers on chess openings, and any professional or ambitious amateur will be familiar with the Grandmaster Repertoire series from Quality Chess. Watson's and Mikhalevski's books are more likely to been read by the typical chess player than any book on 1.b3, and they have to be taken into consideration if one is genuinely interested in seeing the bigger picture. Cobblet (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Soltis quote

Following on from the discussion above (and the name change to Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack), last week I happened upon the quote below (which I though may be of interest to editors here). The source is Andrew Soltis' foreword to The Chameleon Variation: Confronting the Sicilian on your own terms by Carsten Hansen (Russell Enterprises, 2017). Soltis is referring to the origin of the title of his 1982 book Beating the Sicilian, The Chameleon Variation and to the titles of other Soltis-penned works at around that time:

'Chess Digest had issued my previous pamphlets with titles like 1.b4. [Chess Digest owner Ken Smith] wanted something memorable. For subsequent pamphlets I suggested titles such as Nimzo-Larsen Attack (for 1.b3) and Baltic Defense (for 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Bf5).'

It is perhaps unclear if Soltis really suggested the title 'Nimzo-Larsen Attack' for his pamphlet on 1.b3 (the actual title was Larsen's Opening, which was a point of some significance to the discussion above). However, we do at least now know which name he uses to refer to this opening in the 21st century. Axad12 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, the page views analysis of this article (accessed via 'View History') indicates that since the name change here the average page views per day has gone up from approx 5 per day to approx 70 per day (probably fuelled mostly from Google?). Axad12 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"a move in hand"

This phrase links to Tempo (chess) but the word "hand" does not appear anywhere on that page. — MFH:Talk 03:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware that there was a policy stating that all words in a linked phrase have to be included in the page that the link leads to. Could you provide a link to the policy and I'll take it on board for future use. Axad12 (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Having referred to the Manual of Style section on linking (MOS:LINK) I don't see any reason why the phrase "move in hand" should not have been linked to Tempo (chess). Perhaps you could clarify your point? Axad12 (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:EASTEREGG might be applicable. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack → Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack – Per MOS:DASH. Reverted by Amakuru (who did not notify me) so opening an RM. It does not seem like there were too strong opinions in the previous discussion regarding this, but it has been mentioned as a concern multiple times, and counter-arguments like this is what people are actually going to type when they're searching for the article or hyphenated in absolutely all sources known to humanity do not apply since the former can be resolved by redirects while the MOS is just a typographic convention used on Wikipedia which is imposed specifically to introduce consistency into titles where the typography of the original sources vary. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong preference on this issue but (from memory) I believe it was discussed in some detail when the article title was quite correctly changed from 'Larsen Opening' to 'N*L Attack' 14 months ago. My recollection was that the issue on the dash was disputed and there were reasonably strong opinions on either side, but my personal interest was only in getting the name changed to reflect modern usage (i.e. some form of Nimzo-Larsen Attack). Axad12 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONSISTENT. See Caro–Kann Defence and Richter–Veresov Attack. However, if this doesn't go through, they should be changed. Not sure why 'Attack' gets a capital letter, but again that seems consistent with other chess opening articles. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support; this is dual attributive form, as in Epstein–Barr virus. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per mom and arguments and examples given above. It’s too bad there’s not a shortcut directly to this section of the MoS but if one goes to MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES and scrolls down a bit this very issue is covered. As stated, redirects will solve the keyboard input issue.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
• SupportI can't say I find the arguments for the hyphen in the RM last year to be that convincing. It seems to me that the MoS is on the side of the dash. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.