MNb wrote on 07/02/11 at 17:32:00:

True, systems played and propagated by Alapin used to be named after him. From 1900-1920 the move 2.c3 is usually associated with Alapin. Tartakower in Hypermoderne Schachpartie mentions "Alapins 2.c3", but then gives a line which sharply differs from Alapin's treatment: 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.cxd4 (instead of Alapin's 5.Qxd4). Here the problems begin: Alapin's baroque playing style didn't fit well together with a system where no-frills development is required. He also didn't play well against 2...Qa5. 

Alapin played it rarely, in Barmen 1905 he had to watch others taking up c2-c3, which always hurts an original player. I can understand that he gave it up at this point, he was not a mainstream man. A line which is used by brutalo-tactician Nimzowitsch wasn't useful anymore for a sensible strategician. 

The tournamen book Barmen 1905, p. 162, comments upon Alapin's 2.Nc3: "Sonderbarer Weise finden wir Alapin auf einem Wege, den er bei beschränkter Bedenkzeit für gewagt hält. c2-c3 ist der vorsichtigste Zug, predigt er immer." [c2-c3 is the most cautious move, he used to preach]

When Nimzowitsch, Alekhine, Tartakower and others used 2.c3, the system had practically gone into "public domain".

Regarding your earlier question (the "Swede" Lindehn vs "Danish" Gambit). In 1878 von der Lasa changed the opening's name from "Danish" to "Nordic". Interesting that the Swede Lindehn was emigrated to America in 1876...

@ Moderator: Please be so kind to transport all this opening stuff to a new thread "Nomenclature of Openings: Indian Jungle".

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/01/11 at 23:41:14:

Oh yes, thanks. Probably Tartakower's influence, as a longtime Parisienne citizen, who published a lot in French magazines. In general, I think, Kmoch's idea of "King's / Queen's Indian" is more practical, in analogy to King's / Queen's Gambit. 

Thanks to MNb for the explanation regarding "Noors" / "Noorsch".

MNb wrote on 07/01/11 at 22:39:47:

Many thanks, also to Zzz and the others for their replies. Maybe the moderator should transport all this opening stuff to a new thread "Nomenclature of Openings: an Indian Jungle".

In Schachzeitung 1859, Max Lange reacted to Lindehns analyses (who attacked his book). Lange apparently didn't think it deserved a name. 

In The Chess Players' Magazine 1867, pp.230-234, von der Lasa, then Ambassador in Copenhagen, published his article "Danish Gambit". He credited Lindehn, but regarded the Danish analyses (mainly by From) as more relevant. 

In the Handbuch 1878 (5th edition) von der Lasa called the line "Nordisches Gambit". He was a diplomat...

I don't know why it is called "Noors [Norwegian] Gambiet" in the Netherlands. It is strange. Van der Linde's Leerboek van het schaakspel (1876), p. 127, says about the system: "dat veel in Deenemarken en 't Noorden gespeelt wordt". Van der Linde rejected to use "country" names for openings. - FIDE's "Overzicht der Spelopeningen", in Tijdschrift van den Koninklijken NL Schaakbond 1935, has "Noorsch-Gambiet" for 3.c3.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/01/11 at 12:20:21:

In some old Dutch sources you can find Oost-Indisch and West-Indisch, but these names always have been irregular.
My favourite is 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3.
German: Nordisches Gambit (Nordic Gambit).
Dutch: Noors Gambiet (Norwegian Gambit).
English: Danish Gambit.

The opening (including dxc3 4.Bc4) has been invented by the Swede HAW Lindehn, who defeated Steinitz with it.

Lindehn,H - Steinitz,W [C21]
London, 1864

1-0

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nxc3 Bb4 6.Nge2 0-0 7.e5 Ne4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bc5 10.Ng3 Nc6 11.Qh5 d6 12.Bg5 Qe8 13.exd6 cxd6 14.Rfe1 Ne5 15.Re4 Be6 16.Rh4 h6 17.Bxh6 Ng6 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qh6+ Kf6 20.Ne4+ Ke7 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Qg5+ Kd7 23.Nxc5+ dxc5 24.Qxc5 Qc8 25.Rd1+ Ke8 26.Qh5 Rg8 27.Qh7 Ne7 28.Rf4 1-0

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 07/01/11 at 14:17:28:


Tan bun (Sranan)

MNb wrote on 07/07/11 at 16:03:55:

Very interesting, thanks. I followed the spelling used by Cochrane and Oxford Companion to Chess. But when I understand this wikipedia entry correctly, "Moheschunder" was the transcription from his Bengali name, and Mahesh Chandra would be an alternative (Indian?) version, so both are correct, no? In the case of Viswanathan Anand, wasn't Viswanathan the family name, and the "West" got it wrong? If that is the case, I had thought that the authorities of the 19th century were wiser and preferred the family name, Moheschunder. But maybe even that varies in various parts of India?!

Fllg wrote on 07/07/11 at 07:00:29:

True, both terms are seen today. The Grünfeld Defence wasn't "converted" into the G. Indian, in the sense that the old name disappeared. But by imbedding the Grünfeld into a larger entity of 1...Nf6 systems (T.'s defining criterium for "Indian"), it was logical to call Grünfeld's System "Indian", and it was only a question of time that it would come up, as an alternative. 

Tartakower respected names introduced by others, and so he wrote "Grünfeld Defence", even if he didn't like it. As someone familiar with the chess literature, T. knew that the Indian Moheschunder had played 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 in the 19th century. Tartakower took priority questions seriously, thus he often wrote "so-called Grünfeld Defence" or that Grünfeld had "adopted" the system. Can we regard Indisch as his attempt to "heal" Grünfeld's mistake in a larger context? Anyway, Indian described the Grünfeld D. as a bridge between the Indian and the QP systems. Tartakower (p. 27) calls the deferred move d7-d5 the "Implantation des Damengambitknochens" [implantation of the Queen's Gambit's bone], a grim picture. Maybe suitable as cover picture of the next GI book. 

Moreover, when we take into consideration that in those years player-related names like "Nimzowitsch Indian" or "Bogolyubov Indian" became popular, the analogous Grünfeld Indian was to be expected - sooner or later. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/06/11 at 18:37:16:

I have the 1908-1923 collection, reprinted from the 1927 edition. But there is no "Grünfeld Indian". 

The earliest mention I find (after a quick search): Lod. Prins: Grünfeld Verdediging en Schaakpractijk, Lochem 1941. Grünfeld was still alive, so Prins was careful to use the official name. But he slips on p.18: "[...] ten tijde van de introductie van Grünfeld-Indisch, omstreeks 1922, [...]" 

Moderator (Smyslow_Fan), please import the opening bits from the terminology thread to this thread.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/06/11 at 17:17:46:

If you reformulate the question: which was the youngest source where the opening still was called Grünfeld's Defence, there is Spielmann's Richtig Opfern from 1935. My hero played it as Black against Ernö Grünfeld, who was definitely not the same as Ernst. Ernö would change his name after WW-2 in Gereben.
He calls his famous win against Bogoljubow (match 1932, 9th game) KID though it began with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.e4 e5.
So it seems that things weren't entirely established yet by then.

As late as 1968 the American Chernev uses the name Grünfeld Defence in the Chess Companion. Can anyone beat that?

In the 1949 biography on Capablanca by Euwe and Prins we already meet the familiar names NID, QID, KID, GID and Old-Indian. It might be very well the case that Euwe (later with De Losbladige) is responsible for this systematical approach.
Peculiar is 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ (Keres) which is called Franco-Indian.

What I find intriguing is that Wade's reworking of Pachman's book Indian Systems (early 70's) names 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 followed by ...g6 the Tchigorin's Indian. The great Russian indeed once played something like that (against Marshall in 1906) but Paulsen obviously deserves the credit or else the Indian Mahescandra, who used it against Cochrane's Four Pawn Attack.
And is there any other source that calls 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5 the Staunton Defence?

Kmoch in Die Künst der Bauernführung, 1956, calls 1.d4 c5 2.d5 d6 3.e4 Klein-Benoni, which means Little Benoni. He calls above mentioned game Gross-Benoni (Big Benoni).