Vass wrote on 07/13/11 at 21:55:08:

You have great imagination, but it did not prevent Mongredien playing it 6 times in the early 1860's.
1...b6 was even quite popular in the same period.
I think that Jänisch' comment and the general lack of success had more to do with it.

linksspringer wrote on 07/13/11 at 16:17:45:

Yep, Jaenisch was a deep thinker and highly respected as a theoretician. In a magazine article 20 years later he wrote practically the same, only admitting that the Bg7 in the King's Gambit Accepted made some sense. Progress!

Your quote was from 1847, about ...g6 or ...b6. By the way, in the same work he wrote this about 1.b3 or 1.g3:

Quote:

At the end of the 19th century the authors were less negative about early g6 or b6 set-ups, but sometimes they described them as hard or impossible to analyze. The lack of structure in these openings meant not only a problem of classification, the authors were used to study concrete attacks (1.e4 e5; develop fast; attack something) with 2-4 candidate moves per position (Cordel's famous 1 or 3 rule!), and NOT Indian situations where variation trees typically explode.  

[quote author=053B2F253A392009103738560 link=1309972666/70#70 date=1310561664][quote author=05223330373809142333353D3324560 link=1309972666/63#63 date=1310454929][quote author=033D29233C3F260F16313E500 link=1309972666/60#60 date=1310391441][highlight]Btw, Parti/Partie/Partia just means "game".[/highlight] I'm guessing most of the people here know that, but monoglot English speakers may not be aware of this.[/quote]
Exactly. For example, the [b]"Partita di Fischer"[/b] was a system for Black. Do monoglot English speakers here know which line it was?[/quote]

I'm not a monoglot, and I don't know which opening is known as the "Partita di Fischer". :-[[/quote]

KGA 3.Nf3 [b]d6[/b] ?

[quote author=7B4E43654A4C4746412F0 link=1309972666/68#68 date=1310559489][quote]The term "Preussiskt parti" invented by the Collijns was widely accepted and became "Preussische Partie" in many later German sources. So what was the real reason why the direct translation "Prussian Game" didn't catch on e.g. in England? [/quote]

Aha, so parti, in that sense, is another word we've exported, along with sloyd, ombudsman, moped and orientering. :)

As for why it didn't catch on in England, WW I & II may have a big part of it. The first time I went to London (in the mid 1990s) I soon noticed that there was [i]a big difference[/i] between being assumed to be German or Danish. At least when dealing with people more than 20 years older than me. 

So, to try naming anything after 'the enemy' in Britain was probably doomed from 1914 and forwards...[/quote]
Without checking, just my gut feeling, is that after WWII even in German chess literature the term "Preußische Partie" became rarer, in comparison to "Zweispringerspiel i. N.", in spite of all the clumsyness of the latter. Maybe that can be verified with Google "Lab", I don't know. 

Maybe a similar reluctance, or political correctness, played a role elsewhere: the pre-WWI idea of changing "Spanische Partie" to "Deutsche Partie" was soon thoroughly forgotten. (As I have already written, the number of advocates wasn't great already [i]before[/i] WWI.) 

Between 1903 and 1914 there was a small window to introduce a British version. But "Two Knights' Game" was short and fully established, so there was no need for it.

TalJechin wrote on 07/10/11 at 20:47:56:

I recognize that my argument ("Prussian Defence" already in use in France and England) was silly: The term "Preussiskt parti" invented by the Collijns was widely accepted and became "Preussische Partie" in many later German sources. So what was the real reason why the direct translation "Prussian Game" didn't catch on e.g. in England? 

However, there was another game: "Le Jeu de Guerre" or "Kriegsspiel" (NOT chess; it was based on a dissected military map) was known in many countries as "The Prussian Game". I believe (without being sure) that in Germany it was almost exclusively called "Kriegsspiel", so in my country there was no overlap.

Checking in Österreichische Schachrundschau 1923-1925, I find both terms, Preußische Partie and Zweispringerspiel im Nachzuge. But the latter version was difficult even for Austrians, it seems: ÖSR 1924, p. 81, has a heading above Grob - Stieblitz: Zweispringerzüge im Nachzuge. Almost a "Zungenbrecher" [tongue-twister] ...

The New World and the "Indian Defense"

In reply #56 we traced back the first occurence of the term "Indian Defense" to The Times [and] Democrat. The annotations of this US newspaper were reprinted in full in the The Chess Player's Chronicle 1884, p. 172. [I haven't seen the original]. - Thus the USA is connected with Cochrane's manuscript in more than one respect:

- The Times-Democrat of New Orleans 1884 prints the name "Indian Defense", afaik the oldest source to do so. Co-editors of the chess column are Seguin (who has a large chess collection) and Charles A. Maurian, Morphy's friend. Maurian is co-editor from 1883 until 1890, when he went to Paris. - A few centuries earlier Columbus had confused America with India and called the natives "Indians". Finally the New World had found a way to pay back the favour, with a chess opening.

- In the American Chess Bulletin 1909, J. A. Galbreath (New Orleans) tells this story: 

Quote:

After Cochrane's death in 1878, book-dealer Bernard Quaritch offered a transcript of his manuscript (s. below). Since 1869 several chess magazines had written that they got many games from Cochrane, but print only a few of those games. We must assume that most of Cochrane's transcripts have gone lost, but at least one copy survived. Offered by Bernard Quaritch (Firm) in 1886: 

Quote:

We cannot be sure that this is the copy which finally ended in the Cleveland Public Library (actually I hope that it is not the same, cf. the last sentence of this post), but it seems possible that the English chess-friend and multitalent John Ruskin bought this copy. Ruskin died in 1900. The description in the White Collection (CPL) reads as follows:

Quote:
 
The description mentions one volume, while Quaritch said "3 volumes". In the ChessBase database Cochrane's Calcutta games are from 1850-1856 (if I remember correctly). So there may be a small chance that this Cleveland volume is actually only the second of three [transscript?] volumes, and with a little luck 1000+ more games may have survived, from 1829-1849 and 1857-1869. If, by coincidence, you own the two missing volumes, contact me!

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/11/11 at 13:37:21:

Exactly. For example, the "Partita di Fischer" was a system for Black. Do monoglot English speakers here know which line it was?

So the name "Indian (Defence)" (or whatever) does have something to do with India? I remember an old chess book (I think it was called "Die moderne Schachpartie", 1947 or 1948, by Kurt Richter - is that possible?) where it was mentioned that this name has nothing to do with India. So Richter's (or whoever's) statement seems to be wrong.

Zwischenzugzwang