Talk:Chess opening book

Chess Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Old talk

I removed an external link because our own chess opening articles are (finally) better than this page. I have preserved it here in talk in case anyone wants to check it out or disagrees and wants to put it back. Quale 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings by David A. Wheeler http://www.dwheeler.com/chess-openings

rename?

It has been suggested that this be renamed Opening book (chess) to avoid confusing people interested in other games. The rename seems fine to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change. Newwhist (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about Chess opening book ? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a chess player so my thoughts are entirely from the perspective of one who would be encountering and trying to understand the phrase 'Opening book' for the first time. So for me, it boils down to what is the key work - 'opening' or 'book'? I think in the context of the article, it is the noun 'book' modifyed by the adjective 'opening' where book is meant to mean a 'collection' of alternative opening moves. In contract bridge 'book' has an analagous meaning - the 'collection' of the first six tricks by declarer. IMHO 'Chess opening book' places undue, albeit subtle, emphasis on 'opening'. I leave it to you chess players to decide on the move proposal. Newwhist (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A chess opening book is about the chess opening phase of the game, as opposed to chess middlegame or chess endgame, so I think it is fine to emphasize "opening" in referring to the chess opening book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the article

It seems to me as if there are two different things here; there are opening books written to inform other players of new openings and there are databases used by computers near the start of each game, I suggest we have one article for the written guides and a different article for the computer databases. Cliff12345 (talk) 12:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably split the article within two weeks if no objections are given (either here or on my talk page). Cliff12345 (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've split the article now. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last bit seems more like an advert

The section listing several chess books seems like an advert; given that there are so many chess books, yet these few have been selected. Should we still keep this section? Cliff12345 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC) I've also just noticed that The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings is referred to as a very technical and advanced work, followed by a link (http://www.sahovski.com/) that leads to a site which would make a profit from sending people from here to the site, so I'm inclined to remove the General chess opening books (or at least change it) unless someone objects over the next few weeks. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that link, but otherwise I think the section is fine. Those are major general books on chess openings that are in print. It is a subset of list of chess books. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I won't remove the section, but what about the phrase that says a very technical and advanced work, I'm inclined to see that as a bit biased in favour of that particular book. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is a argument against the book for almost all players. It is certainly not like the others. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the statement that it is very technical and advanced (regardless of whether one would view this attribute as good or not) carries a certain level of bias? Cliff12345 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's take that phrase out - then all of them are a simple list of the name of the book, the author(s), the publisher, date, and ISBN. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess opening book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm&date=2010-02-20+10:14:24 to http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/eco.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chess opening book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007101938/http://chessville.com/reviews/ChessOpeningsAncientandModern_and_ChessEndings.htm to http://www.chessville.com/reviews/ChessOpeningsAncientandModern_and_ChessEndings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]