Talk:Vienna Game, Frankenstein–Dracula Variation

old talk[edit]

This is not the Vienna Game, Frankenstein–Dracula Variation. That is 10 moves. This is the 3.Bc5 variation of the Falkbeer Variation of the Vienna game. Surely there a more appropriate, earlier version? Perhaps the "excellent little article" referred to below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeDoyle (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This desperately needs context. Right at the start you need to say what it relates to. Chess I presume - but don't expect your reader to know that. -- sannse (talk) 12:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop marking this page as 'stub' or 'too techinical'!!

It is a stub, and it is too technical. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't change other people's comments. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, an obscure variation in the Vienna game does not really merit more than a short article. As for being too technical: I don't think it is too technical for anyone who understands chess notation, and these are the only ones likely to be interested in such an article. 129.177.61.124 12:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit; maybe people will find it less tehcnical now. It's hard for me to judge, because it didn't seem too bad to me the way it was before. It's really hard to make articles like this accessable to everyone, of course (people who don't know how to play will probably need to at least read rules of chess first), but I think this isn't too bad as it stands. --Camembert

this is an excellent little article. this is the kind of article that makes wikipedia so great. Themindset 07:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Variation method format[edit]

The list of moves that make up the variation badly need a reformat. I've reformatted the rest of the article (mostly wikilinks), but that paragraph (which I moved into its own section) needs to be easier to read, and I didn't know how to do it myself. –Dvandersluis 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the main line in bold which I hope will help the reader to separate it out from the mini-variations. As with the above, though, it didn't seem hideous to me even before this. What's wrong with it, exactly?

What I think is important is that the variation itself comes before any discussion of it; that is, the moves that define the variation should come first. It makes no sense for the article to say "In return for his material, Black has..." before there's been any indication that Black has given material up. --Camembert 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not a chess expert, I know how to play. Looking at the variation, though, was confusing; aren't chess "listings" usually in a two column format, so that each White move is beside each Black move? I wanted to reformat it like that, but because of the extra possibilities and stuff like that, I didn't know how to. Does that clear up my source of confusion better? –Dvandersluis 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does--thanks. The two column format is common, you're right (though so is the way seen in the article right now). I'm not going to attempt changing it myself (because I'm lazy) but if you wanted to have a shot at it then I guess Giuoco Piano would provide a model for formatting in two columns, and Immortal Game gives an example of inserting notes between the moves in that sort of format. (By the way, I removed the cleanup notice in my last edit by mistake; if you want to reinsert it, go ahead.) --Camembert 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I've reformatted the moves, hopefully it's ok. –Dvandersluis 17:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--looks good :) --Camembert 15:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've experimented with six different ways to present games, three where main line moves are treated horizontally, the other three vertically. And within those, no indenting (left-justified), main-line indenting, or indenting annotations. (In all cases, main-line bold, w/ annotations non-bold.) The horizontal, annotation-indented method is IMO the clearest for any reader to understand, and, you can find this now on Giuoco Piano, The Game of the Century (chess), the Immortal Game, and Evergreen Game. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions to everything (it seems). E.g. for Kasparov versus the World, no indenting of annotations worked/works best. (Probably due to its massive content.) --IHTS (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even need to standardize everything? Everyone does things differently, as long as it looks and reads ok. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not suggesting standardization. (Reading ease & clarity is king, & format to achieve is subjective judgment of course. But it's also undeniable that some patterns work better than others for similar cases, methinks.) --IHTS (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]