Talk:Zukertort Opening

WikiChess Discussion

A discussion of this page is occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#1._Nf3 SunCreator (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some named variations from chess.com A04_Zukertort_Opening

• A04: Zukertort Opening: Nimzo-Larsen Variation
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Lemberg Gambit
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Quiet system
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Ampel Variation
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Old Indian Attack
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Reversed Mexican Defense
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Santasiere's Folly
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Tennison Gambit
• A06: Zukertort Opening: The Potato
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Black Mustang Defense
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Ross Gambit

Merge with Reti?

I am against merging Zukertort and Reti. These days the Reti is the more specific 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See also the recent discussion at Talk:WikiProject Chess#1._Nf3. Quale (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They are two different things, although similiar. SunCreator (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles should be kept separate as well. This article covers the opening move 1.Nf3 and the transpositional possibilities; the Reti Opening article covers a variation where Black plays ...d7-d5 and where White counters that with c2-c4. Less than half of all chess games which start with 1.Nf3 wind up being the Reti described in the other article. I can see where the merge proposal is coming from however; the current Reti article spends several paragraphs explaining the transpositional possibilities of 1.Nf3, so there is a certain duplication of content. The reason this happened is probably that the Reti article is much older, and had the 1.Nf3 redirect pointing at it for several years. I think a better way to end this duplication is to move, or remove, the transposition content on the Reti article, and refer readers to the Zukertort (this article) if they want to read about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to not merge, so I'm removing the merge tag. Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, 1.Nf3 is often not given a name, but when it is, it's called the Reti. I don't recall seeing the name "Zukertort" applied to it. If this is in fact the case, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to merge this article into Reti Opening, and explain in the lead that in common parlance "Reti" can refer to both the line 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 as well as 1.Nf3 in general; while the name "Zukertort" has been applied to the latter in the past, it is not in current usage. We shouldn't be using obscure or deprecated names to title chess opening articles, per WP:COMMONNAME. Cobblet (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I second this. Zukertort's from the late 1800's, Reti's from the 1920's. I was just now trying to find games in which Zukertort opened with 1.nf3 and while I found one it wasn't easy for me to find it. Reti used 1.nf3 far more often. Chess.com one of the largest chess websites today has 1.nf3 simply referred to as the Reti Opening with no mention of Zukertort, see here: https://www.chess.com/openings/Reti-Opening. If you search for Zukertort Opening in Amazon.com you instead find mentions of the Colle-Zukertort Variation, an opening that is unrelated to 1.nf3. If however you search Amazon.com for Reti Opening you find books that teach you the Reti and they all open with 1.nf3. Dionyseus (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)