Naming Discussion

Use this channel to discuss the naming of trivial openings or openings with which the naming rights have been given or rescinded to the community. Make any suggestion you like as long as they follow the Opening Explorer Naming Conventions. You can even just type words, names of people, places, films, books, music, stuff you think would make for great Opening names.

Use this page to debate naming ideas. Most naming ideas for trivial (generally rubbish) openings within the explorer will be voted on by admins and coordinators based on your suggestions. This is to save time because there are literally thousands (probably millions) out there. For important Openings where the naming rights have been given to the community, proper polls and votes will be conducted from the best (and seemingly most popular) suggestions and a News Item will be made stating that there is a vote.

If you have naming rights or would like to make a suggestion for an Openings name, please follow the 4pc Opening Explorer Naming Convention:

1. An Opening name shall not be offensive.
2. An Opening name shall not be implicative of any chess website, company or organisation.
3. An Opening name should not be named in such a way as to cause unecessary confusion.
4. An opening name shall not be named after any chess terms or concepts unless it is strictly reflective of that chess term or concept.
5. Names should not be so long as to be difficult or incumbersome to remember.
6. Unless documented otherwise, or a line is so common as to make giving rights to any one person rediculous, then the rights to naming an Opening will be given to the person or persons who first played an Opening as indicated by the 4pc game database.

Here are my reccomendations to naming openings. You do not have to follow these at all when making suggestions or choosing a name for an Opening if you have naming rights.

1. Pick a name that will make people think: "wow, that's a cool name". Something from pop culture, a movie, a meme, a celebrity... something that when non 4pc players hear about the name of our openings will make them evaluate why they are still in the proverbial chess stone age...
2. Avoid using colours within an openings name as this can cause confusion. Not everyone uses Chess.com's standard of Red-Blue-Yellow-Green and if we're going to take the responsibility of defining and naming openings we should be considerate of those who play 4pc outside of our immediate community as well.

Hey, so I'll try to clear some things up with regards to naming Openings.

I am not the authority on what an Opening should or shouldn't be called. Nor am I the authority on who decides what an Opening should be called. There is no authority on what you call anything -> that's just the nature of language - the little symbols and phonetical utterances we use to convey meaning.

Within the Explorer I have laid out some rules / guidelines to naming conventions (and other practices) that I firmly believe are going to be better for the 4pc community in the Long run. I will never force or coerce for an opening name I have suggested to be considered as canon. I have no more right than anyone else to name an Opening unless I have naming rights and, in the case of community votes, my vote will not be considered greater than anyone elses.

If you want to assert your right to be a part of voting on the name of trivial Openings, just say so here and I will make you a coordinator - this is how we will know who wants to be involved in this aspect of Opening development.

One of the rules I have made has caused some controversy.

4. An Opening shall not be named after any chess terms or concepts unless it is strictly reflective of that chess term or concept.

The reason this is controversial is because many 4pc Openings up until now have been named after 2pc opening positions when they have not been reflective or even similar to their 2pc namesake.

For example: A very common and important Opening begins with the moves 1. h3 d6. Many people call this "The Sicilian" because it reminds them of the Sicilian game from 2pc, in that there is a Kings pawn move from the first player followed by a Queens Bishops pawn double move by the second player. However, if we were to look at the Sicilian game from 2 player chess we would know that the 2pc Sicilian game actually starts with a Kings pawn double move and not the one-move as given from the 4pc position. This would suggest then that the name "Sicilian" is more appropriate for the game 1. h4 d6 and not 1. h3 d6.

When you think about this in the context of the long-term implications this can have to the 4pc community its not hard to see why this might be confusing (or even off-putting) to newcomers or those trying to educate themselves in 4pc.

Personally, I'm not really a fan of using 2pc opening names for our own openings but if it is reflective of those positions then it is tolerable/acceptable. To put it another way, 1. h4 d6 is fine to be called "The Sicilian" but 1. h3 d6 is not.

-

Another point to raise is the concept of "Variational name extensions". By this I mean like when we add words like: "Modern", "Hypermodern", "Advanced", "Delayed" etc. etc. This can be fine provided that there is a clear definition of what these terms mean and the position is trully reflective of that term.

Example: 1. h3 d6 h11 ... has often been called the "Hypermodern Sicilian". Ignoring for a moment that it is called a Sicilian (when it has nothing to do with the Sicilian...), one might also be drawn to ask what would make this opening "Hypermodern"? Hypermodernism is a school of thought/play that encourages the undermining of centre control by using major pieces within conventional 2 player chess. If there is something about this position that evokes undermining control of the centre then by all means the term "Hypermodern" would be very appropriate. This term has also been used as an extended name for other positions that are completely unrelated. Together this just creates unnecessary confusion and makes for a very uncomfortable learning experience to those trying to get into 4pc opening study.

We can have Variational name extensions if they are agreed upon and have clear definitions as to what would be entailed. Feel free to use this thread to discuss or debate that idea here. Consider this though: Would you call a particular Opening an "Exchange Variation" if nothing was being exchanged?

-

Like I said before, I'm not a fan of using 2pc terms for 4pc openings but they can be tolerable if there is some aceptable relation between them.

When you look at the first 20 moves available to Player 1 (Red) you can see that virtually all (except the Kings pawn, Queens pawn, English and Orangutan) are named after 2pc players from antiquity. I love 2pc, but respectively none of the fine players have anything to do with 4 player chess...

I believe we should be taking the opportunity to make 4pc our very own and give names to these positions that future generations will thank us for. As to this though, these are things that the community as a whole should decide.

Just as a sidenote:

I have seen suggestions for some of the above problems.

One member of the community suggested that the move 1. h3 d6 - which has been called "The Sicilian" should be called "The Godfather" as a kind of way of getting round the problem of confusing names but keeping things somewhat related.

In another instance I have seen the term SICK be used to describe the position 1. h3 d6 g12 l9. This position has formally been called "The Sicilian - Caro-kann". I would put that the name Sicilian Caro-kann is not an acceptable name because of the unnecessary confusion it can bring - but "The Sick Opening" is a fine name because it does not cause confusion.

Neither of those names were my suggestions, I'm just trying to point out a couple examples and to highlight a means for how you might want to suggest names for Openings that have previously been given not-so-2pc-reflective names.

Unfair Variation - h3 Nc6 g12 Nl6

Unfair Variation: Well Water Attack - h3 Nc6 h11 

You can confirm that UnfairError invented and/or was the first to play these games?

Yes

So this is what you are trying to say?:

1. h3 Nc6  = The Unfair variation

1. h3 Nc6 g12 Nl6 = Unfair variation - mainline

1. h3 Nc6 h11 = Unfair Variation - Well Water Attack?

---

Might I make some suggestions?

Do you think perhaps considering how early the moves are played it might be worth giving these positions Opening names in their own right?

For example;

1. h3 Nc6 = The Unfair Opening

1. h3 Nc6 g12 Nl6 = The Unfair Opening - mainline

1. h3 Nc6 h11 = The Well Water Attack

?

The term "variation" erks me. Strictly speaking it is true that all moves after Player 1 (Red's) first move is a variation of that first move, but if we were to use Variation in the title then the formal name of the position would be something like "Van't Kruij's Opening - The Unfair variation" (Or whatever the community decides to vote on naming 1. h3). I would argue that the position does not need to be named after 1. h3 and is very much an opening position in its own right.

Opening sounds fine, error confirms