The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. The concerns about the title are of interest, but given that it has been used I see no harm in leaving a redirect behind. Much of the content is already contained in the target article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is not clear whether this name of variation really exists, or whether it is just a name used locally in the Nederlands. Sources given are scarce and not enough to decide the name of a chess opening. SyG (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For your information, it is already internationally used, and for example the New In Chess Yearbook and Chessvibes Openings already adapted this name. That you don't know the name, says more about your knowledge of chess opening theory. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs)

As you mention below, New In Chess is a Dutch publication, and the author who used this name in ChessVibes is Dutch as well (besides, I would not consider ChessVibes as an authoritative source anyway). It would help if some, say, UK authors or russian authors (and I am not talking about russian-born authors who are living in Nederlands, of course) or US authors would use this name in publications. SyG (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The line 6... Nbd7 has been played since the 1950s, and also during the 60s, 70s (in conjunction with ... e5), 80s, and 90s. So why is the article seeming to imply the opening is under discussion/investigation as new?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the date of the Lody Kuling game? (The article seems to be saying the opening idea was initiated by that game.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to FIDE.com and ChessGames.com, Lody Kuling was born in 1990. ChessGames has some games from 2007. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would need a lot more convincing. The wording of the wiki article as it stands is plainly wrong. Looking at some random Petrosian games in the 50s and 60s (when both he and Polugaevsky played 6 ... Nbd7 a lot) I even found one where he used this flexible move order to play e5, rather than e6, so the idea is not new, exactly. The article writer on Chessvibes is unknown to me. Lennart Ootes ... not Dutch is he? ... and New In Chess ... well I know that's a Dutch publication. Is this what Twaburov means by "internationally used"? I would be much more keen to see how Ftacnik phrases it - does he speak in terms that confirm this 'international recognition' or not? Provide his quote and I will consider retracting. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect) into Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bubba73 and WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please explain your reference to NNC ? What I am discussing is whether this chess variation should really be called the Verbeterde list, or not. Where would NNC exactly apply ? SyG (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is true that Nbd7 have been played in the past, but after Kleijn-Kuling (Groningen 2007), it gain a lot of popularity. The reason of this was that Lody Kuling found a very good way to meet 7.f4. When Bitalzadeh played it against Pruijssers in Wijk aan Zee in 2009, Ivanchuk was staring at the opening position for a couple of minutes, and then used The Verbeterde List himself a few months later. After Shirov-Dominguez, Wijk aan Zee 2010, black had also a good way to meet 7.Bc4, and because of that even more players started playing it. I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia, but in my opinion it is deserved to be given this name, as since Lody Kuling came up with this idea, 6..Nbd7 became hugely popular. About the references I will be honest: Ftacnik recommends 6..Nbd7 in his Najdorf book, but doesn't mention the name The Verbeterde List. The article writer of Chessvibes was Merijn van Delft, he is Dutch. He discusses my game against Lars Ootes. He uses the name The Verbeterde List. Also Ufuk Tuncer (he is Turkish) used this name in New in Chess Yearbook 101. Also I have some international friends who call this opening The Verbeterde List. Again, I don't know what it takes to be accepted as a name on Wikipedia. Maybe it helps when I write a book about it.

Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The name Verbeterde List is used in a caption in a Spanish text in this report in ChessBase News on a chess tournament played in Amsterdam: ... Lody Kulling, quien en 2008 jugó la variante Verbeterde List de la Najdorf por primerísima vez. I don't know whether ChessBase News counts as a reliable source. The author of this report, Lennart Ootes, is Dutch. --Lambiam 12:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Twaburov has been honest enough to admit that Ftacnik did not use the term 'Verbeterde List' in his book. Without that, we are left with ChessVibes and ChessBase articles by Lennart Ootes, not as far as I am aware, a journalistic heavyweight, and as a fellow Dutchman, someone who may lack the necessary objectivity. It's not just the name issue either, but also a concern as to whether the line itself merits its own independent setting, particularly as it is as old as the hills. I don't doubt that improved plans may have been found, but it is not Wikipedia's place to speculate on the credibility or prominence of opening lines based on the development of improved plans. I would personally wait for a good, reliable source to appear outside of the Netherlands. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lambian, could you give me the right link? It is not really working.. Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've corrected it in my comment above. --Lambiam 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. --Lambiam 20:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So there is New in Chess, there is Chessbase, there is Chessvibes, what else is necessary to be an established name? Twaburov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twaburov (talk • contribs) 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately all these are Dutch or Dutch-related sources. As long as only one country is giving an opening a certain name, it cannot really be taken as a definite fact. I would like to see top-players (and not Van Wely...) give this name to the opening, that would reinforce the credential. SyG (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.