Talk:Grünfeld Defence

Unsourced content

It seems to me this page contains unsourced content from several other pages. I am therefore tagging the parts I consider of the most concern. However, this won't address the other problems I see with this page, such as the language and the focus which I consider overly concerned with listing variants without addressing their importance. Only the Exchange variant is close to that. FrozenPurpleCube 08:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and "In Recent years" should be given specific dates instead. FrozenPurpleCube 08:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The tags you added seem reasonable to me. I expect that someone will add references for those statements soon. It is likely that the four general references already listed in the article will suffice as references for most or maybe even all of the statements you tagged. You are also quite correct that "In recent years" is lousy language for an encyclopedia, so that should be fixed. I don't find any merit in your other arguments (concern over language, focus, and importance), but we've been through that several times before. Quale 08:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bf4

The variation is not often met in top-flight play today, its usage having declined significantly since its heyday in the 1930s.

I don't think that this is true. There are actually quite a few super grandmasters, who use this variation, e.g. Kramnik, Wang Yue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.87.37 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a citation that points to the chessgames.com page for the variation. This does show a decline in the use of the opening, so it seems like a fair claim. However, I would recommend finding a better citation, as this solution relies on user interpretation of collected data. Better would be an openings book that makes this claim. (As a brief aside: referencing chess openings is incredibly frustrating, as even the vast body of published literature on the topic is notoriously lousy at citing its own sources.) Avalanchian (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Exchange variation

What alternatives to Nxc3 are playable? 91.105.28.110 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Neo-Grünfeld Defence

Why is this here? Maybe move to the end as it is it breaks up the flow of the article. Or be a mention in the opening paragraph.

But, to me seems like it is just here because of the name but is a different line altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgorpster (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

it should be split — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.164.90 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

4.Bg5

4. Bg5 is a major variation and ought to be covered. Chessmasterguy (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Chessmasterguy

Cochrane's "book" of 1864 ?

At present (2016 Dec. 24), the History section states: "Cochrane published a book reporting his games with Moheshchunder and other Indians in 1864."

I haven't been able to find such a book. However, in 1871, someone transcribed Cochrane's notes for a book that he intended to publish under the title "Loose Indian Chess Leaves". That transcript is available on the Internet in 4 volumes from the Cleveland (Ohio) public library: http://cplorg.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4014coll20/id/285

Would anyone object to my changing "1864" to "1871" and providing a link to this Web site?

VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably mistake

Under Neo-Grünfeld-Defence it is said "[...] typical move orders are 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 d5 or, more commonly, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 [...]". Please note that both variants given are exactly the same. The first variation is likely meant to be an alternative move order, i.e. 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 d5. Idna (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made the change, although I must say I have no idea which move order is more common (it could equally be 1.c4 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. g3 d5, for example). If anyone wants to check that, please go ahead. Banedon (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is Gata Kamsky still active?

In the History section, Gata Kamsky is listed as an "active, notable" player. I was thinking about putting Shakryiar Mameydyarov in his place. GrandmasterCheckmate (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• The section should probably be rewritten a little. The distinction between "active" players and former players isn't important to this article and would need pointless future maintenance. It looks like Kamsky played some rated games in November 2019, but I don't see the point in writing the section in a way that requires research and determination of which players are active and which aren't in order to constantly adjust the list. Instead one possibility that might work would be to break down the Grünfeld players by decades. Then new notable practitioners could be added in future decades, but the existing text wouldn't need to be updated all the time. Quale (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)