GMTonyKosten wrote on 02/14/21 at 09:26:52:

Well, I've changed the Tournaments icon, is this better? otherwise I could use it for 'Users Online'?

I'm not suggesting a change at this late stage, but if it ever comes up in a future revamp....

The icon for "Chess Tournaments" is the same as the one for "Chess and Computers". I would propose for "Chess Tournaments" a bunch of little users, instead of a cursor. And there are two icons for "Users Online" that are the same. An abstract globe is a pretty common symbol for online, maybe one or the other could be a globe.

This was my point - I'm sure Stefan is right about the history, but I'd wager that the vast majority of the chess playing public, at least those that speak English as their primary language, would call 3..f5 the Schliemann. It would be needlessly confusing to change it.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 09/26/14 at 10:20:13:

Because it was Schliemann who discovered Troy?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 09/23/14 at 20:33:32:

William Cook: The Evolution of the Chess Openings (1906) has the following (p. 20): 

Quote:

It is one of the cases where the Handbuch got it wrong, the flaw spread from the generally reliable source like dandelion on a lawn. Some mistakes are firmly established in chess literature, e.g. should we really rename the Muzio as Polerio Gambit after 500 years? Yet only a minority of authors have attributed 3...f5 to Schliemann. This is not the moment where you want to fight for the right of an opening to be called after a 19th-century theoretician from Germany. 

Englund Gambit: check out the English wikipedia. They even give links to the two articles that I once wrote for ChessCafe.

Edit: 3...Bc5 as a whole has been named after Cordel, since he has contributed to its theory. But "Classical Defence" is a common alternative. In UK sources, probably the latter prevails.

Stefan might be right historically, but regardless, 3...f5 has been referred to as the Schliemann by 99% of the chess playing public for as long as I can remember. It would only be confusing to refer to the Schliemann here as some other line.

Well done, James Flear. I like the whole set of icons, it contributes a lot to the modernized design of the site. The new icon is much better than the "DD".   

GMTonyKosten wrote on 09/20/14 at 13:23:40:

Maybe I'll become a subscriber if Richard Palliser can rehabilitate the Englund Gambit. I've seen that Glenn Flear has recently written about it in "Daring Defences." He calls the gambit "decidedly dubious", so it seems to me that my refutation (+/-) still stands. 

Forum members are often sloppy and misspell names of openings and variations, but since the general overview has "Sämisch", I'd propose to write "Grünfeld" as well. - By the way: In the Spanish Opening, the line 3...f5 has only one acceptable name: Jaenisch (or Jänisch). It is not the Schliemann Variation, which is 3...Bc5 4.c3 f5.

TalJechin wrote on 09/20/14 at 19:57:25:


Yes, it makes sense.

TalJechin wrote on 09/20/14 at 19:57:25:


Yes, I suppose it could/should be, but the 1 d4 d5 section is already so very large.