Talk:Balogh Defense

Merge or keep

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. After being open for well over a month, consensus has not developed to merge this article – one editor besides nom has expressed support for the merge, with several others voicing opposition. No prejudice against future discussions considering a merge. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Chess. The Balogh Defense occurs in the eco category for the Staunton Gambit per , which is already too short, so integration there under a new second level header as a declined line makes sense. Dayshade (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Not it doesn't. Black almost never declines the Staunton Gambit. This opening only really arises from the Pirc move order. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

But when it is declined, this is the usual method. "only really arises" is an exaggeration, as the Staunton Gambit itself is rare. Plus, then you have the "Balogh Defense of the Pirc Defense" which clashes, and the assigned ECO code appears to be with the Staunton Gambit (A82-A83). If you absolutely veto it anyway and reject all of the counterarguments, but I really really hope you don't, I'll merge it to Pirc instead. Dayshade (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I feel like I got overly passionate about my opposition to your opposition (Pirc would be okay), but it's still the least unsound and most common way to decline the Staunton. Dayshade (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, Balogh played it from the Pirc anyway, so I'll just merge it there yeah. Dayshade (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

OK the opening is exceedingly rare by either move order, and has little in common with either the Staunton Gambit or the Pirc Defence. Either ECO code could be applied to it, there are no "rules" about this. I oppose merging it into either. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, this is a pretty useless stub (like Irish Gambit - btw, was really hoping you could drum up some more support for merger/deletion since Khiikiat is opposing it for no particular reason (other than "happy with it as it is" but no reason for why happy) and has now added this weird contrived distinction between Chicago and Irish when the "Chicago" is clearly just the (very dominant) main line of the gambit), so I'd say merging it into one of the two is better than just leaving it as is. I'd agree it doesn't have much in common with typical Pircs, which is why I'd still prefer Staunton (the main minus being that Balogh played it from the Pirc), as declinations of other gambits arguably don't much in common with the acceptances either, what do you think? Dayshade (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: but don't the different variations (compare to e.g. classical, advance, exchange of the French) of many openings have different characters regardless, including of the Pirc, making the Pirc a perfectly okay fit for a merge target if the French can have its variations share a page? Dayshade (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep and improve by adding more references. No obvious target for merge. Khiikiat (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Really Wish you'd become more pro deletion, although this one bothers me less than Irish Gambit. :( Dayshade (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Kids, behave. FaviFake (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He's like me, the more you push your POV the more he resists it. Stop flooding discussions and people's talk pages, and stop making moves/merges/splits/spinoffs without consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I mean that's what I figured, but I also feel like you've developed a bias where you automatically oppose my view honestly because of the amount of past disagreements we've had. You also make false accusations like that a lot (there was zero opposition after leaving the merge proposals up for over a month so that's a completely unjustified accusation). But I also thought you thought the Irish Gambit article was bad and deletion worthy, did you change your mind? Dayshade (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Also find it weird how you ask me to stop talking about articles. It's like you're automatically opposed and want me to stop proposing things because you oppose everything but then refuse to rebut anything. Which is fine as I'm a bit of a mentally unwell person but just wish you wouldn't. Lol Dayshade (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you have any actual support for your move? Because silence is not consensus. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I literally solicited comment on the WikiProject page. I don't know what else you want me to do, especially since you rarely read the entirety of my comments. Also what made you become pro keeping Irish Gambit? Dayshade (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You. did. not. have. consensus. My description was accurate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You. make. no. sense. Dayshade (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Seems like you need to review WP:BOLD? (Despite the fact that I literally solicited comment and waited over a month, even though you don't care about that for some reason and still ignore large parts of my comments and make weird unjustified assertions) Dayshade (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well you keep throwing in random tangential topics (like "What about the Irish Gambit?") and expect me to respond to every point. I prefer to focus on one topic at a time. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Support merge – The article is simply too short. It makes no sense to keep it separate and would be consistent with the merger of the other articles. FaviFake (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep – Per MaxBrowne2 above. Even though ECO plugs it into Dutch, for WP, that clouds the variation's history. This article retains the history and presents the transpositions nicely. We s/ not make mege decisions based on "it's too small" or "consistency [w/ other merges]", which is not a thing. --IHTS (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support merge - I don't think there's anything wrong with merging decisions being based on "it's too small" or "consistency". I do like that keeping Irish Gambit around at least quarantines it from other articles, but this one seems like it'll merge just fine into either Pirc or Staunton Gambit and doesn't have any need to be quarantined. But, it does have its own nature unlike the others. Dayshade (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.