ECO and Opening/variation name

I host a live tournament for my group. When I update scores I like to write down number of moves, add link to the game and write down the opening that was played. People like to know what they played even if they did not know that during the game

But here is where I have interesting/annoying problem.

I analysed all games in Fritz 12, and just write down what Fritz told me it was played. But after some time, when some openings that I know were played I saw that something was not right. After checking one game with 3 different sources I got 3 different results!! Is it possible that ECO recognition is so messy?

Take this opening moves. 

Traspositions are definitely the problem. The fact is that all the positions shown can still reach different sidelines. To name the opening you have to go deeper. But i agree with you that some of the proposed definitions are absurd!

1 is a mainline queen gambit declined for now. But it can still reach tons of different variations, so the computer can't yet classify it. For example the (bizarre?) continuation 4.Qc2 Bb4 trasposes to a 4.Qc2 d5 nimzo indian.

2 is simply a four knight, the next W move will give the precise variation (d4 scotch 4N, Bb5 spanish 4N,Nxe5?! halloween gambit and so on)

3 i'm not a french expert. For me this is already a winaver but maybe the computer is waiting for a3 before giving this definition.

A better way to find the right name is probably consulting wikipedia as long as the variation remains not to deep.

Some time ago I created a topic, where I asked how is opening determined. By the order of moves, or by final position.

Some openings can transpose to almost anything. But should we say this is Reti unusual white 2nd moves (as Fritz does), or should we look at the position and say, this is classic QGD.

Reti vs. QGD

I would trust books on openings written by chess players and other sources by chess players, such as the encyclopedia of chess. 

Some links would help Mr. Reb Eastwood N(o)M(ercy)

Links ?  I use books, like the MCO, ECO(s) , BCO, NCO ,  I have many chess books and I trust them much more than something like Wiki where anyone can post stuff, whether they know what they talk of or not

Well, certainly books are more reliable but as i said until you are not interested in very deep lines i don't think you will find gross mistakes on wikipedia.

That's a known problem. Those engines tend to classify the position too early or too late. For example that first one is not a Ragozin defence. However if Fritz knew the whole game and if black was playing Bb4 later, then Fritz has classified the ''game'' correctly. It is pretty pointless to classify the game based on a few moves. I think we all know the jokes with 1.f4 (The Bird) 1...e5 (The From) 2.e4 (The Kings gambit) 2...d5 (The Falkbeer.) Now everybody would agree here the game is a Falkbeer. The first 3 classifications aren't really relevant.

But yes, the ECO tends to be rather messy and engines have a hard time dealing with these little jokes. I find it best to look at the last possible position, then check from a reliable source what the name is. What all happened before that is preliminary.

To answer:

1) is a typical Queen's gambit declined, variation not yet known, which threw the engine off I guess.

2) Is already a four knights, but even that has no value. Is it Scottitsh, Spanish or Italian four knights?

3) Is absolutely a Winawer after Bb4, the moves e5 and c5 are also normal. I have a book on it. I have read the name Bogoljubov in the Winawer, but I don't recall when it should be called that. A couple of online sources give 5.Bd2 as the starting point of the Bogoljubov. Not sure how reliable that is. In this case it doesn't matter, because no matter what follows, it still is a Winawer. Other specifications are sub variations, for example: The poisoned pawn variation of the Winawer of the French. In this case there is no transposition: The names still stand, you just get more specification.

When I use SCID, I find it names the position rather than the moves.

Inserting the positions in post 1, using FEN, and also by entering moves, including transpositions, it gives the following:

1. ECO:  D35a [QGD: 3.Nc3 Nf6]
2. ECO:  C47a [Four Knights Game]
3. ECO:  C17a [French: Winawer, Advance, 4...c5]

I've found Scid far more consistent than other programs.

I had SCID but found it too confusing to use it. All examples I posted are full games, so fritz could see something later in the game. And yes, next move in French was Bd2. I found out that later, but for an engine like Fritz, to call a Winawer Nc3 Bb5 sidelines?

Chessmaster GM edition handled that very nice. In Reti vs QGD example I posted, CM would say that it is QGD Transposed so you could know that it is QGD setup but with different move order.

As soon as I add 5 Bd2 to your 3rd position, SCID gives:

ECO:  C17e [French: Winawer, Bogoljubow Variation]

My Fritz does that too, only after a3, Bxc3 bxc3 it flicks into C18, main line. Before that it calls it a C17. If Bd2 is played instead, Fritz calls it a C17 also.

In other words Fritz is not so much wrong, it just doesn''t know what the cut off point is. Play out the whole variation, and Fritz will usually classify it correctly. You want to know what it is called before there is any real specification. The program is ill equipped to do that. Use your own judgement if you want to name early positions.

I only use PGN of full games. I could do it manually, but it is 96 games we are talking here. I think I will give SCID another chance.