This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is 1.d4 d6 really the Wade Defense (or "Defence" if you prefer)? I have a huge chess library, and I can't find any book so describing it. If you Google the following: chess ("Wade Defence" OR "Wade Defense") you get some not-very-authoritative Internet pages referring to 1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 Bg4 as being the Wade Defense. I found a column by the British IM Malcolm Pein, who refers to 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 as the Wade Defence, [1], but I haven't seen anything else that refers to just 1.d4 d6 as being the Wade Defense. Krakatoa (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now looked through ECO; MCO-14 (DeFirmian); Nunn's Chess Openings; Batsford Chess Openings-2 (Kasparov and Keene); Concise Chess Openings (Neil McDonald); Winning Chess Openings (Seirawan); Guide to the Chess Openings (Jeffrey Kastner, RHM Press, 1980); The Modern Openings in Theory and Practice (Sokolsky); Grandmaster Secrets: Openings (Soltis); The Chess Opening for You (Evans); Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (Horowitz, 1964); Catastrophe in the Opening (Neishtadt); Catastrophe in the Opening (same title, different book, this one by Plaskett); Standard Chess Openings (Schiller); The Oxford Companion to Chess (Hooper and Whyld); Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess; The Batsford Encyclopedia of Chess (Divinsky); The Encyclopedia of Chess (Sunnucks); An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess (Edward R. Brace); and the Dictionary of Modern Chess (Byrne J. Horton). That's 20 sources, which list pretty much every remotely accepted opening name. It appears that the only one that mentions the Wade Defense is a book I am embarrassed to admit owning: Standard Chess Openings by Eric Schiller. On page 745 of that book, Schiller refers to 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 as the Wade Defense. That is consistent with IM Pein's usage, as noted in my previous comment. Accordingly, unless someone can come up with some reputable sources that call 1.d4 d6 the "Wade Defense," I think that name should be reserved for 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4, and that the article should be rewritten accordingly. Krakatoa (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quale's talk page brought to mind another source: The Mammoth Book of Chess (Graham Burgess). It doesn't mention the Wade Defense either. Krakatoa (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trends in the Wade Defence by Susan Lalic, not ever seen the book, but not surprising giving the rarely of this Defence when taken separately from the KID and Modern/Pirc. ChessCreator (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link gives Wade Defence twice, firstly 1.Nf3 d6 and secondly 1. d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4.

Bob Wade, if this defence is named after him then according to the games at chessgames he's only recorded game was 1.d4 d6 which he played once and then as the White side against a weak opponent, the game went 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.e3

Eudesign link here gives 1. Nf3 d6 as the Wade Defence although in contradiction it's given anECO code of A41-A42 when the 1.Nf3 d6 should be a coding of A04. Also 1.d4 d6 is given as the Pillsbury defence. ChessCreator (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You both provide good research. I was going to suggest contacting the original author of the page, but it seems he has been inactive for some time. Maybe the page should be prodded due to WP:V concerns. If there is a Wade Defence we should cover, it seems that starting from scratch would be better than keeping what we have now. Quale (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. As yet, no one has shown a basis for calling 1.d4 d6 the Wade Defense/Defence (note that the article has been tagged since March 2007 as lacking references and sources). If one rewrites the article to refer to the Wade Defense as 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4, as I originally suggested, there really will be nothing left of the original article except the title. Moreover, it's debatable whether even the "new" Wade Defense warrants inclusion, since (a) there is only minimal source material using the name even for 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4; (b) it's a pretty obscure opening; and (c) it's unclear whether Bob Wade, for whom the opening is named, ever played it. (Admittedly, the last would not necessarily be disqualifying, at least if the name were well established (which it's not). According to Andrew Soltis in Chess Life, Maroczy rarely if ever played the line we now call the Maroczy Bind; similar contentions have been made about Philidor's Defense and Petroff's Defense.) A biography of Bob Wade with 213 of his games was published last year. If someone has the thing, it would be interesting to see whether it contains any games with "his" defense. Krakatoa (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is mis-named and also missing the idea that 1..d6 is normally played for the great transposition value (article mentions this but doesn't give any info). In ECO the classification is A41-A42, so it's not some Irregular chess opening that is part of an ECO section like A00, A04 or B00. Batsford Chess Openings 2 calls it the Modern as does other sources. White's normal response is either e4 or c4 when it's still a Modern according to both Batsford Chess Openings 2 and here.

If White plays 2. Nf3 it's still a Modern, but the response 2. ... Bg4 is the Tartakower variation of the Modern or otherwise known as the Wade Defense. Summary

1.d4 d6 Modern

1.d4 d6 2.e4 Nf6 Pirc by transposition (Pirc is Nf6 at some point to e4)

1.d4 d6 2.e4 g6 Modern

1.d4 d6 2.e4 other 2nd move replies, Modern

1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 English by transposition

1.d4 d6 2.c4 Nf6 Old Indian Defence (Indian is Nf6 at some point to d4 without e4)

1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 Not sure about this.

1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 Modern

1.d4 d6 2.c4 other 2nd move replies, Modern

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Modern

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 g6 Modern

1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 Modern Tartakower or Wade Defense ChessCreator (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Retracted idea of calling it modern, see below. ChessCreator (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that 1.d4 d6 is highly transpositional. I agree that the article is misnamed, since 1.d4 d6 is not, properly, the Wade Defense. However, I don't think the opening becomes a "Modern" unless Black plays ...g6 at some point. See "Tiger's Modern" by GM Tiger Hillarp Persson, p. 5 (defining 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 as "the basic Modern position"); "Modern Defense" by GM's Jon Speelman and Neil McDonald, p. 5 ("All the games in this book could have started either 1.e4 g6 or 1.d4 g6 . . . . The Modern is one member of a family of openings in which Black fianchettoes his king's bishop and usually initially plays his d-pawn to d6 rather than d5.").

Many games that begin 1.d4 d6 are not Modern Defenses. For example, after 1.d4 d6 2.e4 e5, 3.Nf3 is a Philidor's Defense, and 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ is a somewhat significant opening that as far as I know has no name. Similarly, after 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5, 3.Nf3 Nbd7 will become a King's Indian if Black plays ...g6 and ...Bg7, and an Old Indian if Black plays ...Be7. 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 dxe5 4.Qxd8+ is, again, an opening that AFAIK has no name (btw, it's not good for White; Black scores well over 50%). 1.d4 d6 2.c4 Bf5 is the Janowski Indian Defense. And so on.

btw, you contradict yourself in writing about 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5. You list it twice, first saying that it's an "English by transposition" (that is certainly possible -- 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 d6 3.d4 is known; see John Watson "English 1...P-K4," p. 170) and two lines down, "Not sure about this."

But anyway, you, Quale and I seem to be reaching a consensus that it's wrong to call 1.d4 d6 the Wade Defense, and that that term, if it's used, should be reserved for 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Krakatoa (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure what in Batsford Chess Openings 2 you're referring to when you say that that book calls 1.d4 d6 the Modern. 1.d4 d6 appears as part of a section "1.d4: Early Divergences" that appears beginning on p. 63. 1.d4 d6 itself appears on p. 64, line 3, which does not call it "Modern" or anything else. The line 1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 appears on pp. 66-67. That is definitely a Modern. The authors seemingly agree, writing on p. 63, "In the Modern Defence, transpositions between pages 67 and 220 should be noted." (They must mean the line on pp. 66-67. The line that begins on p. 67 is unusual lines beginning 1.d4 d5. The line on pp. 66-67 begins 1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7. If White plays 4.e4, that transposes to p. 220 (1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3, "Modern II").) Krakatoa (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see the logic in saying it's not a Modern until g6 is played. It's clearly a Modern when g6 has been played, and other moves just so rare they either have a separate name or no name at all.

On BCO2, you can't conclude that 1.d4 d6 is a modern. That was my mistake. BCO2 says 1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 is a Modern. But indeed prior to that it's not given a name other then being in the section 1. d4 early divergences.

Here on wikipedia the present Modern Defense only occurs after e4 is played, and that is not the full picture, as the Modern can occur against d4 without e4.

BTW I found this interesting link which again shows that the Wade is the position after 1. d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 and here it's calling 1.d4 d6 the Rat Defense ChessCreator (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think is the best plan for this page? I'm not sure that 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 deserves a page of its own, although if it does, this could be that page. Since Robert Wade (chess player) isn't too large, maybe this page should redirect to it with a section added on the opening. Quale (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those two suggestions is OK by me. Since we really don't have much for an article on the 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 Wade Defense (i.e. Pein and Schiller (and maybe Susan Lalic? -- but I don't think we know for sure) call it that, Pein says it's named after Bob Wade, but chessgames.com shows no games played by him with that line) I would be inclined to go with your second suggestion -- putting it in a section under Robert Wade (chess player)'s article. If that's agreeable to all, I'll be happy to write the section. I'll even call it "Wade Defence" (c, not s) to avoid offending any Brits. :-) I just ordered "It's Only Me," Tony Miles' anagrammatic autobiography. As I recall, Pein said Miles also played the line, so if there are any games with the line in the book I'll see if (a) Miles calls it "Wade Defence" and (b) if there are any games we can cite as worthy exemplars of the defense -- er, defence. Krakatoa (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wade Defence is distinguishable from the Tartakower System, purely by the fact that Bg4 is played on move 2 - I suppose you could call it an Accelerated Tartakower. GM Nigel Davies talks briefly about it here [2]. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched ChessBase's Mega 2007 database for games with 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Although the opening is fairly rare, it's still played more than a lot of openings that have articles in Wikipedia. It also scores much better, and is played more often by strong players, than most obscure openings. Mega 2007 shows it being played 4810 times, and scoring from White's perspective +1686 =1712 -1411, scoring for Black a very respectable 47.1%. (By comparison, New in Chess Yearbook 55 (2000), p. 227, showed Black scoring only 43.9% against 1.d4 as a whole.) The average rating of the Black players was only seven points higher than the Whites (2344 Black vs. 2337 White), so that can't have been a big factor. There are 3,512,846 games in Mega 2007, so the opening was played in only 1 out of every 730 games (0.0137%), although I suspect that if you looked only at games after, say, 1990, the percentage would be higher.

Here are a few examples of leading players' use of the opening. Michael Adams scored +4 =10 -4 with it in 1990-98, including wins over Topalov and Miles, draws against Yusupov, Salov, Van Wely, etc. Viswanathan Anand scored 2.5/4 with the opening in 1990 and 1992, losing only to Garry Kasparov. Lubomir Kavalek played it five times in 1963-85, scoring one win and four draws. Vlastimil Jansa played it 53 times (!), scoring +15 =23 -15 in 1987-2006. Miles scored a phenomenal +20 =13 -6 with the opening in 1982-2000, including wins over the likes of Polugaevsky, Taimanov, Gavrikov, Vyzmanavin, etc. Peter Svidler did even better, scoring 4 wins, 4 draw, and no losses in 1994-2005. Leonid Stein scored 3.5/4 with it in 1962-66! Oh, yes, Wade: he did play the opening, albeit a lot less impressively, and a lot less prolifically, than others, scoring +3 =4 -5 in 1971-2002. So Stein (a world-class GM) was playing it before Wade, and with much greater success, but alas he died very prematurely. On the other hand, Wade may have played it over a longer period than any other player.

To further confuse matters, it belatedly dawns on me that Jouni Yrjola and Jussi Tella, in their misnamed book An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black (which advocates 1...d6 against everything) spend 73 pages (!) analyzing 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Just to confuse matters further, they call it "the Hodgson Variation" (variation of what?), explaining on p. 76 that "the towering figure of the line is Julian Hodgson, who popularized it with many dynamic performances." Hodgson scored an outstanding +30 =23 -10 in Mega 2007. They also observe on p. 7, "In the Oxford Companion to Chess, the opening 1.d4 d6 is attributed to Pillsbury for some reason but who really has heard of the Pillsbury Opening?" (Mega 2007 shows no games by Pillsbury with 1.d4 d6.)

So anyway, I'm coming around to the view that this opening warrants an article. But what to call it? Maybe "Wade Defence" with a redirect from "Hodgson Variation." I don't think Wade really deserves the appellation -- but of course what people actually call it matters infinitely more than my opinion. Krakatoa (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About that "Pillsbury Defence" [Quale would say it should be "Defense" since Pillsbury was an American, and I am inclined to agree]: Hooper and Whyld write in The Oxford Companion to Chess (1984), p. 254, that 1.d4 d6 is the "Pillsbury Defence, . . . an old opening, given by Carrera, usually a prelude to the Pirc Defence[.]" The name "Pillsbury Defence," at least based on my perusal of the book Pillsbury's Chess Career by P.W. Sergeant and W.H. Watts, appears to be founded on two games: Pillsbury's win over Schlechter at Monte Carlo 1902 (game 110 in the book), and his loss to Marshall at Cambridge Springs 1904 (game 144). Both transposed to what we would today call the Pirc Defense. So should 1.d4 d6 be called the "Pillsbury Defence" (or "Defense") instead? At least for that name we have a respectable source calling it that. So my inclination now is to (a) have a "Wade Defence" article on 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4, with a redirect from "Hodgson Variation" and (b) have a "Pillsbury Defense" article on 1.d4 d6. What does everyone think? Krakatoa (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, there's nothing wrong with what you propose, but I would probably place less emphasis on each of these. They're both very minor backwaters, which is why there's not a lot written in books. Regarding the Wade Def. ( - diplomatically not finishing the word!), I see this as an adjunct to the Tartakower System i.e. Queen Pawn Misc./Tartakower System/Wade Def. So I would catalogue it that way, rather than giving it a separate article - much as NCO shows it. Yrjola & Tella have simply recognised Hodgson as a leading (pre-millennium) exponent (it is after all akin to a reverse Tromp!) and invented this name 'Hodgson Variation', probably because they havn't heard of the Wade Def. - and who would blame them? Regarding the Pillsbury Def. I would simply give this a passing mention in the Pirc Def. intro - it's nothing more than an embryonic, first historic step in the creation of the Pirc Def., before Vasja helped develop it into something distinctive. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man , I love this thread. I do NOT think '1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4' deserves it's own page at this time, if it does it should be a separate page to this one and not a replacement. Wikipedia generally doesn't cover offbeat openings and variations at present. This page was created to cover '1.d4 d6' and just not knowing it's name the creator gave it the "Wade", d6 is quite a common reply to d4 and while directly there is little info on it(as what's normally written is about the opening name that results after 2nd or 3rd move), if there was a section on transposition and a section on "Naming problem" or some such it would be fine. Much that is written in this thread would be of great interest to a d6 chess player.

Perhaps it could be called the Rat Defense or the Pillsbury Defense the latter would certainly be with an 's'(btw I have no objection to naming things defense when it's appropriate, my objection is to the double standards that is applied).

The 'Pillsbury Defense' already exists as an alternative to the 'Cambridge Springs Defense' - "The great American master, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, introduced it(The Cambridge Springs Defense) at Nuremberg in 1896. Hence it is also known as the Pillsbury Defense. So it's ambiguous use is another complexity.

Here are some links 1, 2, 3 on the Rat or Rat Defense. ChessCreator (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to find the two games by Pillsbury on ChessGames.com that Krakatoa refers to but did find another one 'William Ewart Napier vs Harry Nelson Pillsbury' labeled 'Rat Defense'. ChessCreator (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just forget about The Rat - every definition appears to be different and link 3 above is just a Leningrad Dutch. Chessgames.com are clearly clueless when it comes to opening classification. Anyway, calling 1.d4 d6 'The Rat' is like me calling 1.e4 e5 'The Mouse' - entirely pointless. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChessGames.com is not the only site, The Rat defense is used at chessnation,chesscafe, the65thSquare and an ECO type opening index list here ChessCreator (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the content is completely contradictory - link one leaves 'The Rat' with white to move - and after Nc3 (the best and most obvious move), we have a King's Indian! In the second link, The Rat appears to be something completely different, a poorly timed f5 ... well, I think GM Baburin's comments sum it up for the nonsense it is ... "Children may be also excited by the names like Gaga Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 g3) or Rat Defense (1 d4 d6 2 e4 f5, page 374), but I guess that more mature players would only smile... Talking about names, it's interesting to see that there is Schiller Variation (oh, such modesty!) in the book, which apparently arises after 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6. Most of the names, which Schiller uses in the book, has little practical value and will not find a place in chess literature." Well said. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from. Perhaps we should not have this page at all. ChessCreator (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brittle heaven that the Internet sources about the Rat are completely contradictory, and that chessgames.com is completely clueless about opening classification; yes, ChessCreator's link 3 from chessgames.com is a Leningrad Dutch. I don't think I've ever seen "the Rat" properly defined anywhere, but I understand it to be synonymous with "Modern Defen_e" -- i.e. 1...g6. Just a few days ago, I was looking at "Chess Life" from 1963 and 1964 on the DVD containing old Chess Reviews and Chess Lifes that USCF sells, and saw some annotations by Bobby Fischer where he mentioned "the Rat Defense as they call it in some of the clubs." I remember he was discussing 4.h4!? against what we (and he) would call "the Pirc Defense" (1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 or, by transposition, 1.e4 g6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 Nf6) -- so he seemed to be using "Rat Defense" as roughly synonymous with "Pirc/Modern Defense." (The DVD is a series of year-by-year PDF files with no index or search capability, so I have no inclination to try to find the article again.)

As for Nunn's Chess Openings by Nunn/Burgess/Emms/Gallagher, page 61, "Unusual Queen's Pawn Openings," says that after 1.d4, "1...d6 2 Nf3 Bg4 (p. 64), generally attributed to Tartakower, is an interesting system that has enjoyed considerable popularity in recent years." I guess that makes 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 the Tartakower Defen_e/Wade Defence/Hodgson Variation. Sigh.

Shockingly, Eric Schiller is inconsistent in his nomenclature. On page 691 of Standard Chess Openings, he captions 1.c4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.d4 the "Tartakower-Indian Defense." (Who ever heard of an Indian defense where Black had yet to play ...Nf6, the move that defines an "Indian defense"?!) The one game he gives in this section is Tisdall-Gulko, San Francisco 1995. That game went 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3.c4, which Schiller says on page 692 "is an invitation to a Tartakower-Indian, which would arise directly on 3...Nf6." (Emphasis added.) In the "Openings Index" at the back of the book Schiller, in true Schillerian fashion, does not mention the "Tartakower-Indian Defense," but defines the "Wade Defense" on page 742 as 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4, referring back to the aforementioned Tisdall-Gulko game.

To sum up, first, the article as currently written should be deleted. There appears to be no support for calling 1.d4 d6 the Wade Defense. There appears to be no reliable support for calling that opening sequence the Rat or Rat Defense, either. There is some slight basis for calling 1.d4 d6 the Pillsbury Defen_e (The Oxford Companion to Chess), and a historical basis, since Pillsbury did play that opening a few times. However, as the Oxford Companion and Brittle heaven both indicate, he did so as a prelude to what we would today call the Pirc Defense.

Second, I think 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 deserves an article, although what the name of that article should be is a good question. Candidates: Wade Defense (per Pein's column and Schiller's book), Tartakower Defense (per Nunn's Chess Openings), Hodgson Variation (per Yrjola and Tella's book). The opening is fairly rare but quite respectable, with strong GM's (starting with L. Stein, and continuing with Hodgson/Miles/Jansa) who play it frequently and successfully. It's much more respectable and frequent than the likes of 1.h3 and 1.a4, which have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. Krakatoa (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the place to discuss here, but I read quite a bit of discussion about merging/deleting chess opening articles. You may like to read it if your not familiar with it. ChessCreator (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the 4810 Mega 2007 database games with 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 again. In those 3.5 million-plus games, there is not one with Tartakower playing Black from that position. However, between 1937 and 1950 he did play Black in 8 games with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 (in only 3 of the 8 was that exact sequence played; the others reached that position by transposition). In that line, Tartakower had the extremely respectable score of +3 =5 -0 as Black. In light of that, I think that whoever wrote in Nunn's Chess Openings that 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 was "usually associated with Tartakower" was mistaken, and that Schiller in Standard Chess Openings was right (!) to call 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4 the "Tartakower-Indian Defense." By the way, that sequence of moves scores a lot worse than 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 -- +415 =314 -252 (58.3%) from White's perspective, i.e. a subpar 41.7% from Black's perspective. The average rating of the White players (2318) was higher than that for Black (2295), but that can only account for some of the difference. I now think that we should have articles on (1) the Tartakower-Indian Defense (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nf3 Bg4), and (2) the Wade Defence (1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4), with a redirect from "Hodgson Variation." Probably the Pillsbury Defense (1.d4 d6) doesn't warrant an article, since almost no one calls it that today and Pillsbury just used it as a means of reaching the Pirc. Krakatoa (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't picked up on this link by Brittle heaven: [3] GM Nigel Davies calls 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 the "Wade Defense" and says it is "Wade's patent"; he also notes that when he showed IM Bob Wade his win as White against the opening, Wade bitterly complained that Davies was showing him a win against Wade's defense. That's three descriptions of 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 as the "Wade Defence": GM Davies, IM Pein, and FM Schiller (and in addition, Davies quotes Wade's acknowledgement that it is "his" defence). Surely that ought to be good enough? I say we retire the present article and substitute one called "Wade Defence," referring to 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Krakatoa (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to edit this page and make it for the position from 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4. Many of the links pointing here will have to change but that doesn't take long as it's quite easy to find them. The only doubtful part is to the question Do we have a new page for 1. d4 d6? ChessCreator (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's turn this into an article on 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 and keep the title. I don't see the need for a separate one on 1.d4 d6 though. There's not much to write about those moves, they just transpose to other openings. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this will be a total rewrite (no GFDL concerns), I gently suggest that it be done at Wade Defence (currently a redirect), then turn this article into a redirect to that page leaving this talk page for posterity. This will avoid aggravation like that experienced at Talk:English Defense. (I say this as an American most used to U.S. spelling.) You can't always count on wikipedia administrators to show common sense. Quale (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, I initially moved the info manually but wondering if that's not the best way undid all my edits. The correct way I understand to preserve the history is to request the 'Wade Defence' is deleted and then this can be moved. ChessCreator (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the target is only a redirect, you can use the normal move facility to move the page over the redirect. If the target had non-redirect text (such as a typo correction in an attempted redirect at English Defence :( ), the move can only be performed by an administrator. My remark was meant to suggest that there was no history to preserve in a complete rewrite. Quale (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, didn't know you could move to a redirect. It's moved now. ChessCreator (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]