Talk:Giuoco Piano

Thoughts on new intro?

I modeled the new version [of the intro, specifically] off of Budapest Gambit's intro/lede/lead, as that article was recently reviewed and kept as GA. Dayshade (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The article is still chock full of unsourced database-driven bullshit. ("usually", "most common is", "is also common" etc). Just because a line is currently popular doesn't make it the "Modern Main Line". Also, there's no need at all to mention rare sidelines like 7.Kf1 in the lead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've seen that in sources, will add more inline citations later. Really need to get some sleep lol. Do you like the intro otherwise besides 7.Kf1? I actually think it's kind of intriguing that 7.Kf1 is viable, so the "and even 7.Kf1" feels like a nice tidbit to throw in. Dayshade (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, feel free to add Template:cn tags to unsourced but true statements that you want me to prioritize finding a suitable inline for. Dayshade (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, maybe I should add something about Karpov (or someone else, or multiple people?) in the last paragraph of the intro, similar to the Greco and Sveshnikov mentions? Dayshade (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Wanna talk more here about this? E.g. about ECO codes, Budapest Gambit, recently kept as GA, leaves them out of the intro. Feel free to make new section. Dayshade (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It is slippery to argue that article X is organized this way, therefore article Y should be organized the same way. Budapest Gambit does not give the ECO codes in the lead, but Ruy Lopez does.

This article has a section at the back entitled #ECO codes. It is non-trivial. A one-sentence summary of it is not out of place in the lead. But perhaps it's not required, either. I leave this argument to editors who have been working on this article more than I have. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The terminology section needs trashing

Sorry but it's terrible. All we need to say is "Giuoco Piano is the usual term for this opening, since Harding/Botterill some writers call it the Italian Game, another common practice is to use Italian Game to describe all 3.Bc4 openings, a few writers use these terms differently". That's all. We do not have to make it any more complicated than that, and I highly suspect that some of the sources are being misinterpreted in the service of POV pushing. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Strong disagree but open to changes. The term has been getting quite rarely used. PCO feels like more of an exception for still using it when you limit things to the last ten years. Dayshade (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Many recent sources still use the term "Giuoco Piano", and by it they mean the same thing it has always meant, 3.Bc4 Bc5. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Thing is, I doubt any of these books spends more than a few sentences on the issue of "Italian" vs "Giuoco Piano", and neither should we, and we certainly shouldn't give excessive weight to minority opinions such as Emms appearing to define the GP as 3.Bc4 only in a book aimed at relative beginners. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Just had a thought, really the "terminology" section belongs in the Italian Game article. Maybe a mention or two of the term "Italian Game" and its increasing usage in the History section, but we don't need "terminology" sections in two different articles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we should not allocate a lot of space to "terminology" -- most readers do not come here for that. There are various openings that have more than one name, e.g. Traxler variation vs. Wilkes-Barre variation, Jaenisch defense vs. Schliemann gambit, and we can generally handle that in one sentence. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The term "Giuoco Piano" used to confuse me and clearly still does confuse lots of people. I can add more examples of sources using it with nontraditional definitions if you want. And as I said, if you limit it to the last ten years, Giuoco Piano often is just not used at all. Definitely worth spending some time outlining the possibilities. And yeah there already is an Italian Game terminology section, so maybe there could be a "This article refers to 3.Bc4 Bc5. For other usages, see Italian Game#Terminology" to avoid redundancy, but idk. Dayshade (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think many people are confused by it. It means 3.Bc4 Bc5. That's it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Then why do so many people use it "wrongly" even in reliable sources? My speculation is that it's because it's both misleading (it suggests "quiet" d3 lines in its literal meaning) and not very useful due to not being that much narrower than Italian because of the transposition to the d3 lines common from the Two Knights. Dayshade (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody assumes that it refers only to d3 lines. As well as being one of the first openings many players learn when they're starting out (e.g. in Chess Ideas for Young Players by Love and Hodgkins), one of the first things they learn about it is that it is not always "quiet". The claim that the name suggests only d3 lines is OR and does not belong in any terminology section. Please stop trying to push your own eccentric interpretations on Wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Page 57 of Chess Opening Essentials: The Complete 1.e4: "The name Giuoco Piano (in Italian: the quiet game) is often wrongly considered synonymous with the Italian Game, but in fact the two openings have game plans with very different strategic characteristics. The reason why this opening is called the Giuoco Piano is clear: White does not seek to ambitiously conquer the centre with c2-c3 and d2-d4. Instead, he contents himself with slow, natural piece development... In some lines White puts off Nc3, reserving the option of c2-c3 in order to calmly prepare the d2-d4 pawn advance, with slow manoeuvring play. Sometimes the name Giuoco Pianissimo (in Italian: the very quiet game) is used for the lines in which White does not try to push his pawn to d4..." (And then they go on to use Italian Game for the c3-d4 line) So just stop with the baseless false claims like "Nobody assumes that it refers only to d3 lines", please. And I've seen other lines in other sources about the name suggesting quietness without defining it as d3-only lines. Dayshade (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, and there's also Kaufman shifting from saying in 2004 that the GP is 3.Bc4 Bc5 to saying in 2019 that the GP is 3.Bc4. Double sharp (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This can at least partially be explained by non-English speaking writers writing in their own language and having their books translated. In many languages it has always been "The Italian Game" rather than the "Giuoco Piano". Kravtsiv actually says in his preface that he made the decision to write in Russian because he found it easier to express his ideas, and had his book translated by a professional translator. In Chess Opening Essentials we've got an Italian, a Russian and a Serbian collaborating, and it's not clear who wrote what section. However the book also includes credit for a translator. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

You're not wrong, just wanted to disprove your claim "Nobody assumes that it refers only to d3 lines." That is a common mistake online. Dayshade (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

First the author makes the unusual claim that White does not try for d4 in the GP. This is clearly ahistorical since the GP terminology dates to the 15th century and d4 lines were played extensively at that time. (GP was used for d4 and d3 lines as it meant 3.Bc4 Bc5 as Max explained.) Then the author says sometimes the Giuoco Pianissimo is used for the lines in which White doesn't play d4. So according to this author, Giuoco Piano and Giuoco Pianissimo mean the same thing. That makes absolutely no sense. The Oxford Companion says that the Giuoco Pianissimo terminology was introduced by Adolph Anderssen. Why would Anderssen introduce the new term, Giuoco Pianissimo, to mean the same thing as an established term? I suspect that an author whose native tongue uses Italian Game for all 3.Bc4 lines and does not use the term GP is simply unfamiliar with English language practice on these points. And a Russian, Serbian, or Italian is not an authority on English language usage to begin with. Quale (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually think we should be looking at the oldest sources rather than the newest ones. The term originated with the 18th century Modenese school (del Rio, Lolli and Ponaziani) who advocated smooth development before attacking rather than the violent gambit style that was prevalent at the time ("gambit" usually meaning the king's gambit of course). The way they used it was descriptive rather than the name of an opening, generally describing any opening where White doesn't sacrifice material in the first few moves (as noted in Hooper & Wyld). If you do a text search on the Modenese players the term doesn't come up very often by the way (see https://www.hathitrust.org).

We're kind of stuck with the translation "quiet game" because that's what all the books give, but it's not strictly accurate. "Piano" is from the same root as "plane" and means something like "flat, smooth, even". This does not preclude attacking early, it just means get your pieces out first (Morphy was no doubt influenced by this way of thinking).

Anyway the early 19th century English writers like Sarratt, Walker and Lewis attached the name specifically to 3.Bc4 Bc5, and this has been the standard usage for over 200 years now. I think we should discount the recent writers who want to use the term differently, especially since they even contradict each other on what the term actually means. The "terminology" section (which rightly belongs in the Italian Game article, not the "Giuoco Piano" article) should give more credence to 200 years of historical use than to recent writers who use ahistorical definitions. I appreciate that they're writing theory/repertoire books not history books, but a bit of respect for the history of the game would be nice.

I am also going to investigate the mid-19th century usage of the two names. It's possible there were differences between the English (Staunton etc) and German (Handbuch etc) uses. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is a translation of the intro to the Giuoco Piano section of the first (1843) edition of the Handbuch:

"In the preceding section we examined, in another manner, the numerous combinations which arise when the player having the move, on the 3rd move of the Knight's Game, sacrifices his Queen's Pawn and then, on the 4th move, plays the King's Bishop to c4.

Now we shall turn to the game in which White develops this bishop already on the 3rd move, not by attacking the knight on c6, but by playing 3. Bc4, whereupon Black most often replies 3...Bc5.

This opening is designated by the Italian authors, and by us following them, under the name "Giuoco Piano" ("quiet game"). They regarded it as the most important of all openings and treated it with particular care. Unfortunately for us, a not inconsiderable portion of their work has been rendered obsolete by the different method of castling that those authors generally employed.

White may now, on the 4th move, either aim at occupying the centre of the board with two connected pawns, or further develop his pieces. In the first case he may play 4. c2–c3 and afterwards d2–d4, whereby at least for the moment his Queen's Bishop and King's Bishop may stand side by side on their fourth squares.

If, however, he seeks to develop in another way, he castles, or plays 4. d2–d3, of which the next section will treat; or he sacrifices the pawn 4. b2–b4, in order, if it is accepted, to obtain by c2–c3 an attack upon an enemy piece.

The principal authors who have written on the Giuoco Piano are:

Lolli, pp. 46, 162, 264.

Ponziani, 1782, p. 53.

Stamma, 1745, pp. 7–19.

Lewis, vol. I (1841), pp. 94–125.

— vol. II (1834), pp. 90–120, 152–170.

— Treatise, pp. 148–189, 243.

Mauvillon, 1829. First game between London and Edinburgh.

On the whole we agree with the judgments of the authors cited regarding this opening, considering it a sound though not very dangerous attacking game. Concerning the move 4. d7–d6, as a reply to 4. c2–c3, we must remark that, although several authors regard it as Black's best move, we nevertheless prefer the defence 4...Nf6 on White's fourth move. If White does not play c2–c3 on the fourth move, it will be still easier for Black to equalise the game completely." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This and subsequent editions of the Handbuch consistently use "Giuoco Piano" for 3.Bc4 Bc5 and "Two Knights Defence" (ok "Zweispringerspiel") for 3...Nf6. They don't use the term "Italianische Partie" except paranthetically as a synonym for "Giuoco Piano". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems to confirm what Paul van der Sterren says in Fundamental Chess Openings (p. 301): For centuries, 3 ♗c4 was so self-evident a move that it was not thought necessary to give it a name, like 1 e4 also has no name. Names were only given after 3 ♗c4, in order to distinguish between Black's major replies. 3...♗c5 was called the Giuoco Piano and 3...♘f6 the Two Knights Defence. The mere fact that in this book I follow the modern trend by lumping them together and calling 3 ♗c4 the Italian Game, is sadly illustrative of the diminished importance of this opening. Khiikiat (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noting that was written in 2009. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC) Also that van der Sterren quote is very relevant to the Italian Game article and should be included there. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I already have it cited there but I'll add the quote. I'm going to implement my idea about the "this article is about..." thing at the top. Dayshade (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't get why he thinks this is sad though. Why anyone want the Two Knights and Giuoco Piano to be considered separate openings while the Berlin Defense and a6 Spanish are considered parts of the same? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, another irritating aspect of continuing to use 3...Bc5 as a split location from after 3.Bc4 is that the history sections overlap too much. I think Italian Game should probably cover all the history relating to White's choice of third move and of later continuation (e.g. the rise of the Quiet/Slow/d3 Italian), whereas more trimming to the history section can be done here, and should cover more about Black's choice of third move, but not sure. Dayshade (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it has to do with how bad the Two Knights used to be considered maybe? It seems to me like until Chigorin, 3...Bc5 was quite dominant. Btw what are the best sources of pre 1800 games? Trying to look more into what Polerio and so on knew about 5...Na5. Dayshade (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to say this but the Ruy Lopez/Spanish terminology is absolutely irrelevant. Opening nomenclature, including whether this line or that line is described as an "opening" or a "variation", is arbitrary, illogical and inconsistent. Always has been, always will be, and it doesn't matter what you think of that. The only thing that matters is consistent use by reliable sources. So just get over it, cause it's getting very tiresome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not irrelevant. It was clearly motivated by the Spanish being less popular than the Italian until the late 19th century. But anyway, none of your further examples of the standard usage invalidate the idea of mentioning other usages. Dayshade (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I should note that your opinion that the only thing that matters is the most widespread usage (biasing towards the oldest sources) was also already rejected by the community at Talk:Jaenisch Gambit. Dayshade (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't entirely "rejected by the community" if you actually look at the talk page, and my opinion was far more nuanced than what you're representing. It was more inertia and lack of clear consensus that led to the page not bing moved. Please don't misrepresent me or what happened. This is petty stuff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what a clearer consensus is than 3 people disagreeing and no one else agreeing. You're the one that misrepresents (admission: yes I've e.g. misquoted Quale, but imo this was very minor) and is petty. All I'm saying is that "the only thing that matters is consistent use by reliable sources" is not true. Dayshade (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed Staunton says about the Two Knights: "This, like the Evans' Gambit, and the Queen's Pawn Game or Scotch Gambit, is a variation merely of the Giuoco Piano; the second player, instead of moving at his third move, K.B. to Q.B's 4th, bringing out his K.Kt. to B's 3rd. It is said to have been invented by Gianutio (1597), and is also noticed by Greco (1615)..." Dayshade (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Del Rio (translated by Bingham) does present the Two Knights as declining the piano game (i.e. giuoco piano) on the third move in a similar way to Philidor declining it on the second move. But it seems this is motivated by him considering 3...Nf6 inferior for the second player ("is not a good move, obliging him either to double a pawn, or lose the convenience of castling, or receive some other small, but still serious detriment in situation" ("detriment in position")), as he touches briefly on 5...Na5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 to dismiss it (while ignoring 6...c6), and then analyzes 5...Nxd5. Looks like he doesn't even mention 3...Be7/etc. Dayshade (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

But he does also talk about the Italians defining it with 3.Bc4 Bc5, saying "It is generally admitted that Black's 3rd move is the best he can adopt", suggesting the Two Knights was seen as inferior. Strange that some authors mix the 3.Bc4 Bc5 usage and 3.Bc4 not-just-Bc5 usage. Dayshade (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The "competing definitions" narrative

I oppose this entire concept on principle. There was never any "confusion" about what was meant by "Giuoco Piano", and giving undue emphasis to certain recent publications which apparently don't know chess history is WP:UNDUE. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if there wasn't in the past, there certainly is today, so a warning is definitely warranted. I think the current warning works well and should downplay any undue emphasis by calling them nonstandard. Dayshade (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, my original proposal to use one of the narrower definitions would've been WP:UNDUE, but I don't think including a few sentences in a Terminology section linked to by a warning on this page is at all. Also I've now shown (see end of previous section) even some very old sources like Staunton using Giuoco Piano with a broader meaning. Dayshade (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw agree with "We're kind of stuck with the translation "quiet game" because that's what all the books give, but it's not strictly accurate. "Piano" is from the same root as "plane" and means something like "flat, smooth, even". This does not preclude attacking early, it just means get your pieces out first." but how could this be noted in the article? Wonder if any of the Italian authors ever elaborate on why it's called "piano"? Dayshade (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

No. "piano" in "Giuoco Piano" means the same as "piano" in "pianoforte", i.e. quiet. If necessary, I will try to find an old source for this, but it's been that way since I learned chess (1962), so I would recommend that you just ignore whatever other goofball alternative etymologies you have found on the Web. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not goofball etymology. I remember we've had several arguments on this talk page with native Italian speakers who insist that "quiet game" is not the correct translation, and they're probably right. We always end up telling them that it's the traditional translation in English whether or not it's technically correct, and we have to follow the sources. "Piano" means "quiet" only as a musical term. Words don't necessarily map directly on to each other in different languages. If an Italian wanted to translate the word "quiet" they'd probably go for "tranquillo". "Piano" doesn't mean that. Besides being a well known musical term for "soft, quiet", it also means "plane, flat, level". In the chess context this probably means something like straightforward, non-flashy, principled. Stuff like developing your pieces early, co-ordinating them properly and controlling the centre before attacking, instead of playing wild gambits. I'm sure an Italian could explain the meaning better than me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if it was proto-terminology for "main line". Dayshade (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Anyway back to the topic.... the fact that 3 fairly recent publications used 3 different and 3 equally incorrect definitions for "Giuoco Piano" is at best a minor factoid which doesn't trump over 200 years of continuous use with the same meaning. The lead section is for summarising what follows in the article body, and adding small details like this to the lead is definitely WP:UNDUE. Only the most important basic information belongs in the lead; for many wikipedia users, that's all they're going to read, so keep it tight and to the point. Normally it should contain 3 paragraphs at most. Also, saying "see (wikipedia article)" is in effect citing Wikipedia, so that's invalid too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Edit: If it is thought necessary to mention this little factoid at all (and I don't think it is, it just adds unnecessary confusion to the article) then at best it deserves a single sentence with proper citations, somewhere in the main body (history section perhaps). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok it's in the history section now, but honestly I think the hatnote was better. I can't believe Khiikiat just randomly removed it without posting in the talk page discussion; I doubt they even read all the links to various sources. I'm really worried about newer readers/players who are confused about the meaning of Giuoco Piano so a more prominent warning and then not mentioning it again seems better to me. Also reminder that despite Khiikiat's non-participating removal, Double sharp agrees at least partially about the issues with the term Giuoco Piano so I'm not the only person worried about this. Dayshade (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh and btw sorry was feeling bad irl the last few days so that made me more bludgeony than normal I think. What did you think of "This, like the Evans' Gambit, and the Queen's Pawn Game or Scotch Gambit, is a variation merely of the Giuoco Piano" from Staunton? Dayshade (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Hatnote/etc

@Bruce leverett: Am I going crazy? There's at least one person (Double sharp) who also opposes the view that other usages of Giuoco Piano shouldn't even be mentioned. I don't know why Khiikiat randomly removed the hatnote (seemingly without reading the talk page) which MaxBrowne2 seemed fine with the "nonstandard usages" version of. But I see above he's fine with history section so I'll add it to there. Is this a consensus you agree with? I still want a hatnote honestly. Clearly this is causing a lot of confusion not only to casual readers but even some of the reliable sources themselves, so use of some hatnote seems justified to me; it could be a different one than before like Template:Distinguish. Or do you really think no hatnote despite the clearly demonstrated confusion? I feel like plenty of articles have Template:Distinguish for less confusing things. Dayshade (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Like, I find Khiikiat's "It gives undue weight to fringe opinions and introduces needless clutter at the top of the page." frustrating. A simple note to help those confused about the terminology isn't undue, they're not fringe, and by that logic every hatnote is "needless clutter". Dayshade (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about your position, I haven't been following closely enough to do that, I'm complaining about the procedure. If you make a change, and someone else reverts it, you're not supposed to make it again. Right or wrong. That's the idea of WP:Edit warring. It has to be resolved in the talk page before you can proceed. If this results in pages that have problems because editors were not able to come to a mutually unsatisfactory agreement, that's unfortunate, but it's considered better than endless cycles of change-revert-change-revert... In Wikipedia, the writing, the research, the reasoning, all sometimes must take a back seat to the diplomacy. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

True, my bad, sorry. Not been in a good mood irl and feeling very dismissed despite showing how many reliable sources are "confused". Btw, we could also do a footnote (I've been starting to use Template:efn). Dayshade (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well as you can see above I didn't really want to include alternative definitions in the text because it's more likely to confuse the reader than help them, but at least it's sourced. An issue with recent sources is they may reflect current fads or errors on the part of the author rather than established practice, and may look very dated in 10-20 years. For 200 years there has been no confusion at all over what opening is meant by "Giuoco Piano". We've got 3 different sources with 3 different definitions and from the chess historical point of view they are all differently wrong, despite being published by reputable chess publishing houses. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It's quite a few more than three, and this is all discounting online stuff too. I could find more examples of 3.Bc4 in particular, but Quale said above while he was correcting me about saying lots of sources instead of some authors use Giuoco Piano for all of 3.Bc4 that some authors do that. Plus we have Staunton and other older authors using that view of the Giuoco Piano too. I just feel like, isn't this what a hatnote warning is for? A "not to be confused with" one, maybe? Dayshade (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources for terminology

Starting a new section to focus solely on the sources we use or might use in the discussion of terminology.

Currently Giuoco Piano#History has three sources for this discussion.

• Emms, John (2006). Discovering Chess Openings: Building Opening Skills from Basic Principles, p. 47
• Flear 2010, p. 81. Harv error: link from CITEREFFlear2010 doesn't point to any citation.
• Kalinin & Kalinichenko 2021, p. 13. Harv error: link from CITEREFKalininKalinichenko2021 doesn't point to any citation.

Titles are not given for the second and third references, so we must fix that if we're going to use them. I think they are

• Flear, Glen (2010). Open Games
• Kalinin, Alexander, and Kaliničenko, N. The Modernized Italian Game for White

I don't have any of these references.

Emms is used to support the claim that some authors use the GP name for all 3.Bc4 lines. This seems plausible to me, although at least in the US the Two Knights is usually considered to be its own thing (perhaps unless White plays 4.d3) and often the Evans is treated separately as well.

Flear is used to support the claim that some authors use GP only for lines with 4.c3. I find this doubtful. In fact the text says "The Giuoco Piano, also known as the Italian Game", which means that in this book Flear equates the GP and the Italian Game as both being 4.c3. Earlier the books says that 4.d3 is the Quiet Italian. So the Quiet Italian is not a variation of the Italian. (This may fall into the fallacy that 4.d3 lines are a modern invention when in fact they go all the way back to the beginning of the GP.) That's too illogical to deserve any notice in Wikipedia. The source disqualifies itself as an encyclopedic source for terminology. Any claim that the GP means 4.c3 needs a better source.

Kalinin and Kaliničenko write in the Forward by the Authors, "in the notes of the Italian masters of the 17th century, the line of the Italian Game with d2-d3 was named the Giuoco Pianissimo". Maybe Max knows something about that, but Oxford Companion to Chess says that Anderssen coined the Giuoco Pianissimo name which would have been 19th century. If Oxford is correct, we're not off to a great start. On page 13 they say the Renaissance masters had two main branches in the Italian Game, the GP (4.c3 Nf6 5.d4) and the Giuoco Pianissimo (4.d3). This treats the Evans Gambit as its own separate thing under the Italian, which is probably OK. I'm not at all sure that K&K intend this to be taken literally as 4.c3 d6 and 4.c3 Qe7 are not the GP by this definition. I think Alekhine would be surprised especially by the latter as he played 4...Qe7 and I'm pretty sure he thought of it as the GP. When I read their text I think actually that they mean literally that the earliest writing on the GP explored 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 and 4.d3. This is true as a statement about the earliest writing. I'm not at all sure that they are claiming that this defines the GP and I think it's very hazardous to draw that conclusion from their text. I think there is useful information in this book (I think it does a great job of breaking down strategic and tactical themes of the variations), but the idiosyncratic interpretation of their terminology is not notable for an encyclopedia unless we can find another reliable source that does the same.

While researching this I encountered other sources that use the traditional 3.Bc4 Bc5 definition of the GP.

• Mednis, Edmar; Soltis, Andy. (1980) Understanding the open games (except Ruy Lopez), p. 6 - describes the GP as is traditional after 3...Bc5
• Chess Notes (2025). Giuoco Piano 2026 Short Version 750 Games. - traditional definition
• Evans, Larry (1973). What's the best move? Chess quiz - traditional definition
• Tartakower, Savielly; Du Mont, J. 500 master games of chess - traditional definition, also the usual def for Giuoco Pianissimo
• Estrin, Y; Panov, V.N. (1980 transl. of a 1977 book in Russian) Comprehensive chess openings: Volume 1, Open Games, p. 103 - standard definition of the GP. Also includes chapters on the Two Knights and Hungarian D.
• Hartston, William Roland (1996), Chess, p.124 - usual definition of GP. Of extra interest also on page 123-124 is "there is a convenient classification, according to the opening moves on each side. Open games, beginning 1.e4 e5. Semi-open games, beginning 1.e4, Black not replying 1...e5. Closed games, beginning 1.d4 d5. Semi-closed games, beginning 1.d4, Black not replying 1...d5. Flank openings, beginning with any move other than 1.e4 or 1.d4." This is the organization we had on chess opening for about 19 years before recent changes. (Of lesser interest is the use of × for captures instead of x.)

I think this whole "controversy" is a drummed up wikipedia controversy not found in the real world of WP:RS chess literature. If better support can't be found we should remove the whole thing. Quale (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It isn't the organization we had on chess opening for about 19 years. See this old revision: where it has "Indian systems" as a header and not Semi-closed games, though it does mention Semi-closed. And yes, pre 2000 a lot more are using the GP term. There is also Vincent Moret 2016 and I can track down more but the only thing I really care about at this point is establishing in the article that there is confusion, and it's not just a wikipedia controversy because this alarming level of confusion shouldn't be completely ignored, even if all it really is is just confusion. Dayshade (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm so alarmed. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It was the organization for 19 years. The article didn't simply "mention" Semi-Closed Game, it was the the {{main article}} top of section link for "Other Black Responses to 1.d4" in May 2007. (You might guess why this was the case if you think about it. "Other Black responses to 1.d4" would be a very poor title for a WP:SPINOFF article.) I too am not alarmed at a made-up controversy. Quale (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

How is that logical? I would hardly call that "the organization for 19 years" if it's not the header breakdown. I saw a talk page a couple weeks ago with someone criticizing the term "Semi-Closed", too. But as you can see, Max agrees the confusion is so alarming so we need to keep the due warning on this page. /s Dayshade (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also why oppose introducing Sicilian as another level of breakdown if you're good with Indian systems getting their own? This is off topic from this though. Idk what else we need to discuss here. You really want there to be zero warnings on this page? Dayshade (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Concentrate on the question at hand. I am not prepared to discuss the Sicilian, the Indian systems, etc., on the Giuoco Piano talk page.

Do I correctly understand that you are meeting sarcasm with sarcasm in replying to MaxBrowne2's comment about being alarmed? It's hard enough to keep up with this constant flow, without also trying to figure out what's sarcasm. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. (That's why I added the /s marker, btw, which is sort of a neologism) Dayshade (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Dayshade you have an IDHT issue. As I already explained very carefully, a spinoff article for a section called "Other Black responses to 1.d4" needs an article name. That article name has been Semi-Closed Game for 19 years and it was the linked as the main article for that section of the chess opening article for 19 years. Discussion of this and your other bad ideas for the chess opening article belong on Talk:chess opening. Quale (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Just spun off to there. Disagree with applicability of IDHT to this. Also I think IDHT as a subsection sucks and needs a lot of work. Primary WP link should be WP:LISTEN instead and it should be broken up into e.g. when the editor is "consider[ing] what others are telling [the editor]" and "[making] an effort to see [the other] side of the debate, and [working] on finding points of agreement" (I am) and when they are not. Dayshade (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you don't like WP:IDHT, take your complaint to Wikipedia Talk:Disruptive Editing. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I plan to but I also don't agree with his characterization in this instance. Dayshade (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw I'm amazed how long the old tradition of considering the Spanish "one opening" vs the Italian 2+ openings survived, even though in the 21st century it's finally on its way out. How did this not drive GMs crazy at the point when the Spanish had been dominant over the Italian for half a century or more? Dayshade (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also why is everyone pretending I didn't say anything with regards to Staunton saying the "[The Two Knights], like the Evans' Gambit, and the Queen's Pawn Game or Scotch Gambit, is a variation merely of the Giuoco Piano; the second player, instead of moving at his third move, K.B. to Q.B's 4th, bringing out his K.Kt. to B's 3rd." Dayshade (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Did Staunton come up earlier in this discussion? What for? Is anybody reading Staunton's opening theory any more? I see what MaxBrowne2 meant when he referred to "sealioning". Bruce leverett (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MaxBrowne2 has been portraying all conceptions of the Giuoco Piano as other than 3.Bc4 Bc5 (and not e.g. 3.Bc4 alone) as things along the lines of "confused" and "recent idiosyncrasies" etc. (not sure the exact words, but do you know what I'm talking about?), so Staunton using it that way casts doubt on his claims that there was always a clear, certain interpretation from the beginning, which he uses to suggest there should be no warnings/explanations to confused readers. You mean sealioning as in "a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity ("I'm just trying to have a debate"), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter"? I'm definitely not having a great month mental health wise but I don't see how there is trolling, harassing [any more than MaxBrowne2 is, at least], pretending to be civil/sincere, or feigning ignorance. Dayshade (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

There ARE relentless requests, but more for responses to relevant-seeming evidence that has gone unaddressed/apparent illogical clashing things that are being ignored because "just get over it" etc. The tangential stuff does happen but not in terms of requests for evidence, and imo the overreactions to it do more harm and more to derail the conversation. Dayshade (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Staunton writing that the Evans and the Two Knights are variations of the GP is of interest, but it doesn't prove what you seem to think it does. First, the The Chess-Player's Handbook, Chapter VI is titled, "The Two Knights' Defence", not the Two Knights' Variation or similar. Staunton's writing reveals that although he held that the GP and the Two Knights are very closely related (this is also the modern view), the common name of the opening even in his time was Two Knights Defence. He doesn't argue that the Two Knights should be renamed and he treats it separate from the GP. His Chapter IV, "The Giuoco Piano", includes several illustrative games, all with 3. ... K.B. to Q.B's 4th. The Two Knights illustrative games are in the Two Knights chapter VI. Chess writers in subsequent decades continued to treat the Two Knights separately from the GP. In recent years I think the Two Knights is often treated as a variation of the Italian Game, but since we already do this in the Italian Game article I don't see a problem. (From an opening repertoire point of view it's necessary to study the GP and the Two Knights together, but Wikipedia is not a chess repertoire encyclopedia and never can or should be -- see WP:NOTGUIDE.) Merging the GP, Two Knights, Hungarian Defense, and Semi-Italian Opening articles into Italian Game would be pointless and bad. It's well known that for historical reasons many variations in the open games were named "xxx Opening" or "yyy Defense" when many variations of the closed games that were developed later were named "zzz Variation" even when these closed game "variations" are individually more important than some of the open game "openings". (If we find a WP:RS we could mention this in Open Game. Maybe we have or had something like that in the article already.) Max has already explained that chess opening names are not scientific Linnaean taxonomy. Deal with it. Some players enjoy the history of the game including the openings. If you don't, that's fine, but history is going to remain an important part of Wikipedia articles on chess openings. Quale (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the main benefit of merging Semi-Italian would be eliminating having an article under a problematic title, but it would give it too much weight at Italian Game. I agree with your entire comment pretty much. I only want it to be another piece of evidence to prove that there is sufficient confusion surrounding the meaning of the term Giuoco Piano that this page should mention that the nonstandard usages exist in some way. I don't really care how, but not removing all mentions of the existence of non-3.Bc4 Bc5 usage from the article. Dayshade (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I actually like that opening terminology is not always logical or consistent. I like that 3.Bb5 is considered a single opening, while 3.Bc4 Bc5 & 3.Bc4 Nf6 are also considered separate openings in their own right. This is all a reflection of the rich history of the game and its literature, and is anything but "alarming" to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Relentlessness has no place in Wikipedia. Making the same point, or asking the same question, over and over is hostile. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

How much more relentless do I feel than e.g. Max? Dayshade (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also are you still not convinced that "Giuoco Piano" has significantly declined in use over the last 40-50 years? Dayshade (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, since we're talking about terminology, do you prefer something besides "Classical Variation" and "Modern Variation" as labels for 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 and 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3? e.g. for 5.d4, "Classical line", "Classical main line", "Open line", etc. Or is it good as is? Dayshade (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Where did you get "Classical Variation" and "Modern Variation"? We aren't supposed to make stuff up here. I'm just asking, I don't have any good sources handy, other than old editions of MCO, BCO, etc. If you have some source for those names, I'm happy. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd have to dig through the insane amount of sources I have because I didn't write down where, but I think it was only one or two that used those, so probably not justified. I've more often seen e.g. "Modern main line" or "Modern Italian" and "Classical main line" or "Classical Italian" (The Slav is even more like this; you usually see "Classical Slav" but not "Classical Variation"), but there's little consistency (as usual for the Italian Game). The no-caps "Classical main line"/"Classical line" might be better, or "Old main line", but I do see the word "classical" attached all the time in some way to the c3-d4 line, such as in FCO. I'm not sure how much less objectionable people find no-caps monikers to the current fully capitalized labels. Dayshade (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY, nobody is obligated to satisfy you. You spew out so much text and demand answers to everything and relitigate settled issues and just never shut up. This is sealioning behaviour and it's very wearisome. Like Bruce I also suspect that you're just making stuff up with your "classical/modern/old main line" labels, with or without caps. How do we know these lines aren't just current fads? How do we know the "old main line" or "classical main line" won't go back to just being considered the "main line" once the current crop of GMs retire? We don't. More than once on examining the sources I've found that you've misinterpreted or misrepresented them. This is a serious competence issue. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not to obligated to satisfy you either but I kind of want to anyway even though it's an impossible task. The classical main line will never stop being the classical main line, I would think, even if it somehow manages to become the modern main line again. Are you saying you haven't seen "modern" as a label in any sources at all? I can comb through again in the near future but so exhausted rn. Dayshade (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Also thought that was just because of moves including 4.c3 being labeled "Giuoco Piano" in certain books? When else did that happen? And shut up about saying I "never shut up" etc. And pretty sure you're talking about the Semi-Italian thing with the recent relitigation but omg, I just don't understand why no one else cares about how messed up that name is in the context of not using the traditional meaning of "Italian Opening". Dayshade (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It isn't correct to give names to opening variations based on "only one or two" sources, out of many, which you do not remember but would have to dig for. We do not give things names here; we only get names from our sources. We are anonymous editors, with no independent authority beyond that of our sources. For us to use a name to identify some variation, it has to be the overwhelming choice of our sources, not just our favorite choice of many.

I sympathize if there are no obvious choices for names for the 5.d3 and 5.d4 variations. After all, they are important variations. Perhaps after a while the published literature will settle on names for one or both of them; or perhaps not. But if they don't have names yet in the published literature, that's tough toenails for us. We will just have to go without. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

They do agree on the use of "classical" for c3-d4 and to a lesser extent "modern" (but there is also "slow", "quiet", etc. but these introduce confusion with the Nc3-d3 line) in some form for c3-d3, though, so should it be "Classical line" and "Modern line" instead? Dayshade (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"slow" can be a description or a name. Hypothetically, if you said, "5. d3 is slower than 5. d4", you could more or less get away with it (WP:BLUE). But if you refer to "the Slow variation", you're using it as a name, and you have to obey the rules for names, as I described above.

Similarly for "quiet" and "modern".

Since I am the one who doesn't have enough sources, I will leave to other editors the question of whether you can use "classical" for the 4. c3, 5. d4 line. Although in the morning I may be able to check for that in my old MCO's, etc. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Which edition of MCO? I'd bet the "classical" terminology wouldn't be present in anything before the 80s if not later, since 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 was still the main line over 5.d3 then, but it's definitely a thing by the 00s, e.g. in FCO. Dayshade (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

In MCO-15 (2008), DeFirmian writes,

The first six columns cover the "action" variations where Whte plays 4 c3 and 5 d4.

So not only does he not give it a name, he uses scare quotes to make it clear that he's not giving it a name. He didn't go out of his way like that in MCO-13.

NCO (1999) doesn't have names for 4 c3 5 d4 or 4 c3 5 d3. But it refers to 4 d3 with 5 Nc3 as the "Giuoco Pianissimo". BCO 2 (1989) doesn't have names for those two variations either; neither of these two books gives many variation names.

All three books classify the Two Knights defense separately from the Giuoco Piano. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Van der Sterren describes 4.c3 as "the classical reply", and later describes 5.d4 as "the classical move, but it has fallen out of grace by now". He does not give any name to the line. He defines the Giuoco Pianissimo as 4.d3 and 5.Nc3. He describes combining 4.d3 with 5.c3 as "a modern variation on this theme", again not giving a name to it. He also notes the similarity to the Ruy Lopez, to which a few lines even transpose. So far it's looking like giving those lines the labels "classical variation" and "modern variation" is not NPOV nor is it an accurate reflection of the sources. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

But do you mind "classical line" and "modern line" as monikers? Lower case to emphasize the descriptive use. I feel like ideally should avoid purely pgn for the headers. Personally I think calling the line corresponding to the classical moves the Classical Variation is fairly NPOV, but agree best off avoiding the term in order to reflect sources better. Dayshade (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Btw if we do remove more monikers then I'd really like to cut down on more of the "____ Variation"s that aren't very common outside of e.g. Hooper and Whyld. The awkward mixing of pgn-only headers and words+pgn headers bothers me. Can always be mentioned in the prose. But I'd wanna know more criteria for which ones need to be kept. Dayshade (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Could do "old main line" if you wanna downplay further as we discussed a few months ago, but "classical line" seems reasonable to me in this case. And come to think of it, I even saw a video (non-self-published) that called 3...Bc5 the Classical Variation (of the Italian Game), but never seen that repeated anywhere else. Dayshade (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

When an opening book labels a line as "modern", it should normally be understood as an editorial comment rather than the actual name of the line. Estrin as well as Harding & Botterill label 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 the "Modern Variation" despite the fact that it's been known since 1837. Authors are allowed to editorialize like this, but Wikipedia shouldn't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

True, but at least this one is heavily backed up by trends in games going back decades now, so it seems unusually justified whereas with 3...Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 it seems less so. If you wanna do pgn in the header that's fine (part of me just resists the clash of having some headers be pgn accompanied with words and some not), but what about for stuff like "transposes to"? Would you do e.g. "transposes to the 4.c3 Nf6 5.d3 line"? or something else? Dayshade (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Just realized, the thing I just raised in the last sentence above has much in common with Quale's recent comments at the WikiProject talk about not titling 1.Nf3 as 1.Nf3, but rather as Zukertort Opening. Sort of off topic but semi-relevant. Dayshade (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This source uses "Modern Main Line" btw: Dayshade (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Italian Gambit

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Italian_Gambit and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italian_Gambit&action=history. The content from Italian Game related to 4.d4 should be incorporated into this article. Basically 4.d4 is inaccurate because of 4...Bxd4, if White wants a Scotch Gambit he should play 3.d4. The name "Italian Gambit" seems to come from a 2003 book by Laven and Acers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Fr Hooper & Whyld (1996), p. 363:

Scotch Gambit [...] The gambit may also arise as 928 in the Italian Opening.

where "928" on "4.d4 exd4" lists "Scotch G". --IHTS (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

But 4...exd4 is inferior to 4...Bxd4, putting it in the summary at the beginning gives the impression that it's the main move. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Didn't think re "impression". Only supplied 4...exd4 to have a name and not leave 4.d4 "hanging". Suggest we just delete both "4...dxe4" and "Scotch Gambit" then, and leave 4.d4 hanging!? p.s. The thread you listed has two participants commenting the Laven/Acers book is insufficient as RS. --IHTS (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Or we c/ add "4...Bxd4!" after "4...exd4" and ref it (Unzicker in ECO vol C).  Done What say you? --IHTS (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Giuoco Piano#Variations says "examined in this article are ..." and then lists things such as 4.d4 that I don't see examined in this article. (Apologies in advance if it's there. I'm looking at this tonight on a mobile device.) Quale (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't notice before. Dayshade changed that sec header descriptor on June 13 in this edit. The merge discussion he opened for "Italian Gambit" (which exists in no RS) was closed on June 14 at 14:21 , the result of that discussion acc to him was a simple REDIRECT w/o content. He removed the merge hatnote on June 14 at 18:08 in this edit, and there was still no content re 4.d4, there was only an intra-article wlink that had no corresponding anchor. (Perhaps he presumed it w/ be a placeholder for future content!?)

Um, am done trying to make sense of Dayshade's edits, his changes were at best positive but arbitrary incomplete, at worst sloppy. We c/ "fix" by adding new content now, or re-edit the secname descriptor to rmv the claim everything is covered in the article. (There were other intra-article wlinks in the list w/o corresponding anchors, I've rmv'd them or re-provided the anchors, but am too burnt out now picking up pieces Dayshade left behind, so will leave the rest of this topic/what to do or not do, up to others. ) --IHTS (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have dealt with this more at the time ideally but lost interest due to the drama with MaxBrowne2. Dayshade (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd say just remove the claim everything is covered in the article, though. Easy to back once it is. Dayshade (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Another option was to del vars in the list not having coverage. But it's moot now since all listed vars have some coverage. (IMO the extensive tree-branching c/ be too potentially intimidating to new player readers, so moved it toward end of the article. Not sure we even needed an expanded list in the first place.) You were the editor who expanded the list , but you were also the editor who del'd a similar expanded list from article Two Knights Defense that was mature and in table form and well-maintained and already toward end of the article . Since you're a "lover of consistency", how do you explain that?!? --IHTS (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The Two Knights deletion was because that was a specific type of technical diagram that no other article had on Wikipedia but duplicated what was on the Wikibooks page. I agree and am no longer sure we need to have the expanded list that I added either, but I guess it's nice to have section anchor links in it and it's more readable to newer players. Dayshade (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(Outdenting to focus on the list of variations) In September 2025 the article looked like this

Variations
The main continuations on White's fourth move are:

• 4.c3, the Main line
• 4.b4, the Evans Gambit, in which White offers a pawn in return for rapid development
• 4.d3, the Giuoco Pianissimo
• 4.0-0, often with the intention of meeting 4...Nf6 with 5.d4, the Max Lange Attack, in which White opens up the centre, or 5.d3, the Giuoco Pianissimo

Other continuations are:

• 4.Nc3 Nf6, the Four Knights Variation
• 4.d4, the Italian Gambit, which is considered an inaccurate move order due to the reply 4...Bxd4
• 4.Bxf7+? Kxf7 5.Nxe5+ Nxe5, the Jerome Gambit, an unsound opening where White sacrifices two pieces with the idea of exposing Black's king and obtaining a mating attack

What we have now is a lot more complete but not necessarily better. I understand the motivation of moving the long list to the end of the article but I don't like it there. The original intent of this list was to make it easier for the reader and novice players to see the high level outline of possibilities and to navigate the article. I don't think there's any way to make the long list meet those goals. I think we should consider either simplifying it and moving it up in the article or we should remove it.

While we're discussing a related topic, the article has far too many sections. It makes the TOC very long and much harder to understand or use, and the reading experience is extremely choppy and confusing with many very short one to four sentence sections. There is no rule that every move should get its own section and it makes for bad reading. Paragraphs are a thing that exists, and not every paragraph should get its own section header. Quale (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Could you outline an ideal TOC? Dayshade (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. (But am not one of the largely responsible editors, so won't be making reforming edits. But have restored orig loc of Variations sec.) --IHTS (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)