The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus to keep is clear (noting that the post-nomination !vote is nominator's comment), and further discussion of article title may be continued on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 03:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Irregular chess opening

Irregular chess opening (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant article with inappropriate title, material is covered elsewhere and can be merged.

The technical background to this is fairly complex so I'll try to describe it so that a non-chessplayer can follow.

(1) The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) is a 5-volume standard reference work on chess opening theory originally published by Chess Informant in Belgrade between 1974 and 1979.

(2) ECO introduced a system of classification of openings whereby all openings are assigned a code. The first component of the code indicates which volume of the encyclopedia the line is found in (A-E), the second component is a two-digit number to indicate a specific line or set of lines. For example, C41 is the code for the opening known as Philidor's Defence. ECO codes have gained wide acceptance in the chess world and are used by many publishers other than Chess Informant.

(3) Over 95% of high level games begin with one of 4 standard opening moves by White; a further 2 opening moves are common enough to have their own ECO code. The ECO code A00 is a "dustbin" code covering 14 rare opening moves by White which have little in common with each other.

(4) There is no generally accepted technical term for "A00" openings; they might be called "uncommon openings" or "irregular openings" or "unorthodox openings" or "miscellaneous openings" but these are more by way of description than actual names like "Philidor's Defence".

(5) In early chess literature, the term "irregular opening" was a vaguely condemnatory term used for openings which were considered unorthodox at the time. It was never a precise term and was used differently by different writers. Some openings originally considered "irregular" such as the French Defence have since become common. As opening theory developed the term "irregular opening" was used less frequently, to the point that the Oxford Companion to Chess says the term has fallen into disuse.

(6) If the term is still used, it is generally understood to be more or less a synonym for "unorthodox" and does not refer exclusively to the openings covered by ECO code "A00".

(7) Back in 2002, a wikipedia article called "A00" was created to cover the openings included in this code. The article has since been through several moves and is currently called "Irregular chess opening".

(8) In my opinion this is a poor choice of title since the term "irregular opening" does not refer exclusively to ECO code A00. While mystifying to non-chessplayers, the title "A00" did at least accurately reflect the article's contents.

(9) The article consists almost entirely of wikilinks and has no substantive content.

(10) The existing article List of chess openings already covers this material in the description of ECO code A00.

(11) The article is therefore redundant and should be deleted/merged with List of chess openings. Any material thought to be of value can be incorporated into List of chess openings.

(12) The space for Irregular opening could, if desired, be used to describe the historic use of the term in chess literature. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep there are a number of flaws in the above arguments. Firstly it is almost entirely non-policy based. Secondly even the nominator feels that there should be an article on the subject (see point 12)! This is not how AfD is supposed to work, you adapt articles until consensus is achieved.

Irregular chess openings, or uncommon openings, as well as being mentioned in the Oxford Companion to Chess, is also based on Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO), there is a specific subsection for them. ECO is the standard text for opening classification, and is entirely notable. They also pass WP:GNG pretty easily (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject), with a lot of sources on the web, although most have been removed from the article.

There are the following references: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}

Also see e.g. http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=a00 ; http://www.chess-game-strategies.com/types-of-chess-openings.html ; http://www.mark-weeks.com/aboutcom/aa03b01.htm ; http://www.24-7chess.com/how-to-deal-with-irregular.html ; http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/choosing-opening-repertoire . Add the following books: Oxford Companion to Chess, Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Modern Chess Openings (Pitman, 1946), Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom, (By Eric Schiller), Chess Book for Beginners (By A Gopalratnam). In other words there is a number of reliable sources on the subject. And even the nominator feels there should be an article on the subject. ECO codes are also used by the majority of articles on chess opening theory in Wikipedia and Wikibooks, with the term "irregular chess opening" being commonplace in the relevant articles, so an explanation of them is warranted. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 12:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

"Redundant" was my plain English explanation, WP:CONTENTFORK is the relevant page if you want me to cite an actual policy. Plus, "irregular opening" is not, and never has been, a synonym for ECO code A00. No amount of citation bombing can change this. I don't know why you continue to resurrect sources which are clearly unsuitable for wikipedia. MaxBrowne ( talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There are plenty of book chapters and even whole books with titles like "irregular openings" or "unusual openings". These are all in ECO A00. ECO doesn't use the term "irregular openings", mainly because there is intended to be in international book and contains very, very little prose. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Ample coverage as cited above, nomination is entirely non-policy based. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as nominator. I am disappointed with the quality of the arguments for "keep" ( WP:IJUSTLIKEIT) and none of them address my main points. (1) This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of material already covered in the article List of chess openings. (2) The article is based entirely on a false premise. The opening sentence of the article defines "irregular opening" as openings covered by ECO code A00 and this is demonstrably false as numerous sources (including many given here, e.g. OXford Companion to Chess) will attest. Please do not be blinded by the citation bombing, many of the sources given are very poor quality (e.g. self-published websites or obscure books that noone's heard of found by a google books search) and many of them (e.g. Schiller) actually agree with me re the definition of "irregular opening". That definition being - "whatever the writer defines it as". It is not and never has been a precise term, let alone a synonym for ECO code A00 (the original title of the article).
  This is a form of the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Openings classified as ECO code A00 may all be irregular (even that's debatable, what about 1.g3?) but not all irregular openings are ECO code A00. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. (I apologize for this lengthy essay, my argument is basically that "irregular chess opening" is a valid term that is useful in top level categorization, and deletion of the article would break the web.) This is an example of an unfortunately not too rare case where complaints are lodged against an article by an opponent who (with reason) would like to see it deleted, then well meaning persons try to address those complaints but in so doing actually make the article worse, and finally the opponent nominates the weakened article for deletion. (I'm not claiming this was a conspiratorial plan, it's just how things happen sometimes on Wikipedia.) Before edits were made to try to shore up the article, I think it was at least a little bit better. See for yourself, the January version didn't contain the A00 ECO code stuff and still while definitely imperfect especially with regard to sourcing, it was arguably better than the article is now. Article deletion should be considered top down as well as bottom up. Viewed bottom up, the nominator doesn't like this article for reasons explained pretty well in the nomination argument. But the article doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's part of building the web in trying to make the subject of chess openings accessible to everyone who has an interest. Although this article is several years older, around 2005 the chess project started gaining some momentum and worked on improving the most important foundational articles in Category:chess, including chess opening. Like many things, the chess opening is a somewhat difficult topic to treat appropriately on Wikipedia. The state of the article in early 2005 was poor, entirely inadequate for anyone who knew anything at all about chess but it also didn't offer much to beginners either. The chess opening is a vast subject and even a decade later Wikipedia articles cover only a tiny fraction of published theory. Taxonomy of the opening is a bit difficult, since we need an encyclopedic treatment that is accessible to non-specialists and that is not the way that most published sources treat the chess opening. ECO codes are the most commonly used comprehensive categorization, but I think a look at list of chess openings will convince most chess editors that these codes don't provide the best organizational strategy for a top down presentation of the subject beginning at chess opening. The best option we devised at the time was to use a fairly well understood and recognized division into the Open Game, Closed Game, Semi-Open Game, Semi-Closed Game, Indian Defense, Flank opening and Irregular opening. Although a few of these terms are probably a little obscure to even some experienced chess players, all of them are known in chess literature. The categories are described in chess opening#Classification of chess openings, including brief notes on the most significant openings in the category and links to the main article for each category where the reader can expect a more extensive discussion. This allows us to keep the main chess opening article reasonable without letting it be cluttered by inclusion several dozens of major openings and a couple hundred obscure variations. The nominator is correct that "irregular opening" (and also "flank opening", for that matter) do not have a single universally adopted definition (and some chess writers would not use "irregular opening" at all), but I don't think that precludes their use in this encyclopedia given that we have a need for a comprehensive top level classification. The definition of "irregular opening" is really everything that doesn't fall into one of the other categories. This is something that books such as MCO and NCO don't need because they can briefly mention some of the most obscure opening lines in footnotes or columns tacked into other chapters and completely ignore the most obscure, but it is important to an encyclopedia that aims to cover each of the 20 possible opening moves by White. The only thing that these irregular openings have in common is that they are very rarely played, mostly because they have significant disadvantages. If this article is deleted, it will break the web. Currently a reader can start at chess opening and work her way through the links Open Game, then Semi-Open Game, then Sicilian Defense and finally Najdorf Variation. Generally the articles get more specialized as the reader descends, but there is a reasonable path at each point. In a similar way, there is a reasonable chain of links that can lead a reader from chess opening through irregular opening and to Saragossa Opening. If the article on irregular openings is deleted then there is no good path to those irregular openings from chess opening. Replacing it by a link to list of chess openings is unsatisfactory since I see no reasonable way that a non-specialist could find the information that was in Irregular opening on that page. All this said, I can certainly imagine that someone could find a better top level categorization to use in chess opening that could remove the need for the irregular opening article. One possibility would be to classify the irregular openings as flank openings. It's hard for me to recall, but I think my main concern with that in 2005 was that flank openings, as generally understood, are largely well-respected lines such as the English Opening and the Zukertort Opening. The irregular openings are distinguished from the flank openings because they are rare, and mostly bad. Still, there are a lot of lousy lines at Open Game too, so maybe this isn't very important. Quale ( talk) 05:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Both the proposer and Quale make very good points. I more or less agree with everything said here and I'm caught somewhere in the middle. I'd probably say 'Keep', but then unhelpfully suggest a renaming and substantial rewrite. Firstly, I'd retitle the article "Unusual Openings" - a term populist authors of opening books (like Ray Keene) have been using since the 1970s; it would be appropriate to start "(also known as irregular openings)" too of course, and maybe this should be accompanied by some explanation, to acknowledge and amplify aspects of historic usage. As an introduction, I would suggest describing the article content as constantly in flux and in some ways subjective, due to the modern 'repertoire approach' of chess opening writers, the evolution of chess theory, the influence of grandmaster play, and consequent fluctuations in opening popularity. Perhaps give some examples, like the Benko Gambit (originally a not very popular opening choice) or the Philidor Defence (which has undergone periods of popularity and a long spell when it was out of fashion). The main part of the article could contain a list of the more or less definitive unusual openings, and just a paragraph, probably not a list, alluding to some of the more 'middle ground' choices - like Bird's Opening, Larsen's Opening, The Colle-Zukertort etc. Some would say these are valid content, while others would say they are popular enough to avoid the 'unusual' tag. A worthwhile exercise may be to use Chessbase to shape the choice of content, by quoting the numbers (percentages) of games where these openings occur (with a reference date of course) in tournament practice. I don't think it would constitute original research, provided the stats aren't then used to arrive at any conclusions beyond basic popularity. Without getting too lengthy, I do agree that having an article helps beginners to understand openings and opening choices and move between the other articles. I'd also say that the integration with ECO codes unnecessarily complicates and may be detrimental - I'd suggest keeping this content in a separate paragraph, as something distinct but clearly related. I don't think that the two concepts are wholly compatible though and shouldn't exist side by side. Brittle heaven ( talk) 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

I like the idea of decoupling it from the ECO code which is an artifical classification anyway. For some reason the ECO editors (Matanovic?) decided to classify the reasonably common and not too shocking 1.g3 alongside rubbish like 1.a4 while giving the less common and slightly more outre 1.b3 and 1.f4 their own codes. It's an arbitrary distinction and an arbitrary editorial decision. So let's make the article no longer about any particular ECO code but about unusual/unorthodox/uncommon/irregular/incorrect/weird openings in general. MaxBrowne ( talk) 12:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per user Quale. And I don't see anything wrong with "Irregular" as a descriptor/term, it means simply "not regular" = not regularly seen or used, which is meaningful. "Unusual" as a word isn't as good IMO, it doesn't necessarily have the same meaning. (Things "unusual" are often things unexplored/unexplained, potentially significant, and for which there is little known.) IHTS ( talk) 19:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment Seems we have a consensus to keep the article. Do we also have a consensus to use the traditional meaning of "irregular opening" and decouple it from the ECO code A00? I'd be happy with that outcome. Also, I suggest moving the article to Irregular opening (currently a redirect). MaxBrowne ( talk) 08:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think that "chess" should remain in the title. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Unless a disambiguation is needed the word "chess" is not necessary. The entry in the Oxford Companion is called "irregular opening", not "irregular chess opening". MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

But anyone reading the Oxford Companion knows that they are reading a chess book. The title won't be so obvious to a casual reader of Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

We already have Open Game, Closed Game and Semi-Open Game and nobody felt that these needed to have "chess" in the title. The phrase " Irregular opening" is what is used in chess literature, not "irregular chess opening". MaxBrowne ( talk) 05:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

OK, I see your point. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, 'Open Game', 'Closed Game', 'Semi-Open Game' are all proper nouns like 'Sicilian Defence', germane to chess. 'Irregular opening' isn't proper noun but qualifies as a chess term!? So perhaps the diff is moot. IHTS ( talk) 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.