520:, adding the details of its nonusefulness to the list of possible responses by black. I could find no sources in Google News / Archive for the three alternate games given (Pickering Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense), but the term is sourced. If there are meaningful sources to be added, the article can be recreated as a standalone in the future.
207:
and other chess publications. That is not true of this line, there are virtually no Black players would play 1.e4 h5? except as a silly joke, since the move 1...h5 has no redeeming features. (We have some other silly joke openings as well, but at least they are covered in the
433:
That it's a bad idea doesn't mean it isn't worth an article. This is not a chess instruction book, covering only the good ones. If it's notoriously lousy, it's notable for that reason. Something widely used as a bad example can be notable.(if it is in fact so
541:. While I initially thought the subject had enough notability as an opening chess move, it appears that it's so rarely/poorly used as to merit little discussion. The one dubious source for 'pickering defense' mentioned on google scholar
267:
article cites three references, but BCO2, although listed, actually has no mention of this opening, so I must consider the other two references perhaps suspect also. If it's not in ECO, per nom, then I doubt the other two cover it.
450:
Actually, I agree with almost every word you say here. The disagreement is on whether this opening is indeed "notoriously lousy", or just plain "lousy". There does indeed exist an opening which is notoriously lousy, called the
164:
310:
I thought I could take a look at MCO14, and I found that 1...h5 is mentioned... in a way... in the introduction to the chapter "Unusual King's Pawn
Defenses" where he covers 1...a6, 1...b6, and 1...g5. De Firmian
459:
opening lacks coverage in any chess literature, and since the volume of chess literature consists of thousands of books, many, if not most, of them devoted to various opening lines, that is saying something.
48:. There's a wide variety of opinions and some consensus that this article shouldn't be here, but none as to what specifically to do with it. Discussion on moving, redirecting, merging, etc. can continue at
216:, where it is adorned with a skull (meaning "don't play it") along with the words "never seen". Looking at the table of contents at Amazon, even Eric Schiller's large collection of opening horrors called
474:
Yes, the
Damiano is the "poster child" of bad openings, and there are sources of information about it. I can't find anything on this opening in the standard references, not even a name.
496:
unless a suitable reference is found. The article says it is called "Pickering
Defense, Goldsmith Defense or Desprez Defense". I can't find a reference for any of those except
125:
455:, which is used in several publications as an example of bad opening play. For that opening, I would agree with you, the Damiano is indeed notable. The AFD reason here is that
158:
195:
The subject is a very rare chess opening, 1.e4 h5. The ChessBase database of four million + games has only 42 game examples. Although there are other dubious (e.g.
92:
87:
96:
203:) openings, these have at least been played often, sometimes as a fair attempt to surprise an opponent, and have been analyzed in the
79:
17:
179:
542:
146:
204:
497:
345:
MCO-15 says the same thing. But neither MCO or any of the references I checked give a name to 1. e4 h5. Non-notable.
568:
36:
140:
239:
382:
567:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
553:
529:
508:
482:
469:
445:
425:
421:
408:
387:
353:
328:
301:
277:
255:
229:
61:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
136:
549:
57:
243:
83:
49:
186:
396:
370:
315:. I'm not sure if De Firmian going out of his way to tell us that something is non-notable ironically
375:
416:. Users Sjakkalle and SyG accurately summarise this article's notability, i.e. it doesn't have any.
313:"Other moves, such as 1...h5, are not considered as they are simply too bad and need no discussion."
464:
417:
404:
323:
224:
172:
545:
525:
212:.) Apart from these silly joke game examples, the only non-wiki analysis I have seen of this is
538:
517:
152:
504:
478:
349:
297:
273:
75:
67:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
200:
213:
452:
461:
400:
320:
221:
196:
521:
441:
251:
289:
The
Wikibooks article lists BCO2 and MCO14. I don't have those editions, but it is
501:
475:
346:
294:
293:
in BCO1, MCO13 or MCO15, under any of those names. And it is not listed in ECO1.
269:
113:
264:
53:
436:
247:
544:
is clearly not enough to establish notability for its own article.
561:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
373:
where it already has context. No need to have it by itself.
500:
has "Desprès
Opening", but that is 1. h4, not 1.e4 h5.
120:
109:
105:
101:
171:
185:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
571:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
399:. Rarely played but worthy of inclusion.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
220:doesn't seem to cover this line.
205:Encyclopedia of Chess Openings
1:
498:The Oxford Companion to Chess
554:22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
530:20:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
509:04:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
483:17:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
470:06:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
446:23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
426:08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
409:02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
388:18:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
354:15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
329:06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
319:that subject's notability.
302:04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
278:13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
256:12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
230:11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
62:08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
588:
218:Unorthodox Chess Openings
210:Oxford Companion to Chess
564:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
246:, among other things.
50:Talk:Pickering Defense
397:King's Pawn Opening
371:King's Pawn Opening
535:Redirect and merge
44:The result was
467:
326:
227:
199:) and poor (e.g.
76:Pickering Defense
68:Pickering Defense
579:
566:
539:King's Pawn Game
518:King's Pawn Game
465:
378:
324:
263:I note that the
225:
201:Marshall Defense
190:
189:
175:
123:
117:
99:
34:
587:
586:
582:
581:
580:
578:
577:
576:
575:
569:deletion review
562:
453:Damiano Defense
376:
132:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
585:
583:
574:
573:
557:
556:
532:
514:Merge/redirect
511:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
428:
418:Brittle heaven
411:
390:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
305:
304:
281:
280:
258:
197:Latvian Gambit
193:
192:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
584:
572:
570:
565:
559:
558:
555:
551:
547:
546:Themfromspace
543:
540:
536:
533:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
510:
506:
503:
499:
495:
492:
491:
484:
480:
477:
473:
472:
471:
468:
463:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
438:
432:
429:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
385:
384:
380:
379:
372:
368:
365:
364:
355:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
330:
327:
322:
318:
314:
309:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
296:
292:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
271:
266:
262:
259:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
563:
560:
534:
513:
493:
456:
435:
430:
413:
392:
383:
381:
374:
366:
316:
312:
290:
286:
260:
235:
217:
209:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
159:free images
462:Sjakkalle
431:weak Keep
401:Alexius08
321:Sjakkalle
317:increases
265:wikibooks
222:Sjakkalle
522:Alansohn
466:(Check!)
377:Schmidt,
325:(Check!)
311:writes :
226:(Check!)
126:View log
502:Bubba73
476:Bubba73
347:Bubba73
295:Bubba73
287:Comment
270:MadScot
261:Comment
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
505:(talk)
494:Delete
479:(talk)
414:Delete
350:(talk)
298:(talk)
238:Fails
236:Delete
137:Google
121:delete
97:delete
54:Stifle
434:used)
180:JSTOR
141:books
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
550:talk
526:talk
457:this
442:talk
422:talk
405:talk
393:Move
367:Move
274:talk
252:talk
244:WP:N
242:and
240:WP:V
214:here
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
537:to
516:to
437:DGG
395:to
369:to
291:not
248:SyG
187:TWL
552:)
528:)
507:,
481:,
444:)
424:)
407:)
352:,
300:,
276:)
254:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
548:(
524:(
440:(
420:(
403:(
272:(
250:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.