Difference between defense/variation/continuation/etc.

Is there a guideline for naming opening variations, and if so, what is it?

For example, it sounds like the first few moves of an opening can be named "Opening", or if it's White's move it can be called an "Attack", or if it's Black's move it can be called a "Defense". If I'm not mistaken, a particular attack after that name can be called an "Attack", also. Somewhere in there an opening can also be called a "Game". Somewhere after that a line can be called a "Variation". I also read that after the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match that one of Fischer's lines would be properly called a "Continuation" (specifically "The Fischer Continuation") instead of "Variation", but that's the only time I ever heard of the word "Continuation" being used formally in a name.

Specific examples:

1. Nf3 - Zukertort Opening
1. c4 - English Opening

1. b3 - Nimzo-Larsen Attack
1. Na3 - Sodium Attack

1. e4 c5 - Sicilian Defence

1. e4 e6 - French Defence

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 - Four Knights' Game
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 - Italian Game

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 - Tarrasch's Variation (of French Defense)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 - Rubinstein Variation (of Four Knights' Game)

Easy - Note the move that determines the opening name.  If it's a move by Black, it's a Defense.  If it's a move by White, it's an Attack, Opening, or System.

In either case, if it's a Gambit, it's called just that rather than a Defense, like the Latvian "Gambit".

1.e4 e5 openings are a bit of an exception because of how old they are.  Many of them weren't identified as Openings or Defenses at the time.  They were just "The Spanish" (now also known as the Ruy Lopez), or "The Russian Game" (now also known as Petroff's Defense), etc.

If you exclude 1.e4 e5, note the following:

1.e4 doesn't define a French.  After 1.e4, 1...e6 does define the French.  Since Black made the defining move, it's named the French "Defense".

1.c4 defines the English.  Can it transpose to something else?  Yes!  However, provided it doesn't, it's known as the English "Opening".

1.d4 doesn't define the Torre.  1...Nf6 doesn't define it.  2.Nf3 still doesn't define an opening.  2...e6 (or 2...g6) doesn't either.  3.Bg5 now the system has a name.  It's the Torre.  Who made the last move?  White!  Therefore, it's the Torre "Attack" and not the Torre "Defense".

The term "Variation" is specifically a subset of an Opening or Defense.  Take your example.  1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 is the Tarrasch "Variation", but it's still a French "Defense" as well.  It's the Tarrasch "Variation" of the French "Defense".

For something to be named a "Variation", the following would have to make sense (filling in the blanks):

The ___________ "Variation" of the ____________ "Opening/Defense/System/Game/Attack".

The first blank is the "Variation", the second is the "Opening Name" (or Defense, System, etc.)

thriller is right to a large degree and his logic is sound. But much like the the english language not every opening is named based on logic.

ex. "the marshall attack" Is a gambit by black

Well, do notice I did say "If you exclude e4 e5".  The Marshall Attack is an e4 e5 opening, so the fact that it doesn't follow the "rules" is not surprising.

Of course, many also call it the Marshall Gambit even though technically, the Marshall Gambit is 4.e4 against the Triangle Defense.

Great info, ThrillerFan, thanks! I'm going to have to digest the implications of all that for a while, though.

So you never heard of calling a variation a "Continuation"? Other than that one example I mentioned, neither have I. Maybe it's very obscure usage, or maybe the author was just joking. It was in a book that described the 1972 Fischer-Spassy match in detail, and I don't have access to that book at the moment.

It makes sense that some openings with names that conflict with the apparent logic behind naming conventions is explainable by historical reasons. That's analogous to the explanation as to why the spelling of some words in English sometimes breaks the empirical rules.

Yes, the logic between "Attack" versus "Defense" is very clear, and I already figured that one out, though I hadn't thought of the Marshall Attack as an exception, probably since I wasn't familiar enough with that variation.

It sounds like the name "Attack" can be used for a variation within the name of any variation whatsoever, including within a "Defense", such as in the Four Pawns Attack in Alekhine's Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pawns_Attack). It also sounds like there can be a "Variation" within a "Variation", such as the Poisoned Pawn Variation of the Najdorf Variation of the Sicilian Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation). I wonder if it's acceptable to have an "Attack" within a "Variation".

I wonder how people would react if I started using the word "Tabiya" (as in "The STOCK Tabiya" [of user shell_knight] or "The Symmetrical Tarrasch Tabiya") for variations where there exist many transpositions to a specific position that is particularly common. That would suggest the *position* was what was more important than the moves that led to it, which would partly resolve the problem of transpositions.

some continuations of the sicilian najdorf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2553614

I'm not saying your article isn't interesting, but two things concern me:

(1) You're hijacking my thread to promote an article you've written that is mostly unrelated to the topic of the thread. Your article has no information that I could see that helps answer the question I posted.

(2) Is this what people who write chess articles have to do: use spam to get someone to read their articles? Aren't there any standard places to publish or at least post such articles? Does the public even care? The same people who want answers to their questions, such as tips for being better chess players or analysis of their lost games, are quite possibly the same trolls who post personal attacks against people who want to write such articles, so what is the point of trying to advance chess if online chess players have that kind of attitude? No wonder grandmasters like to keep their secrets to themselves: to disclose secrets or even to disclose organized learning material free to an ungrateful public just increases their professional competition and has no financial or even emotional reward. I suppose I should take a tip on wisdom from the masters: just tell lower-rated players that if they want good advice, information, or software, they're going to have to pay for it from now on.