05 Jun 06
Originally posted by Knight SquareIndian defences are where you reply to 1. d4 with Nf6. There are quite a few ways it can develop - depending on what you play afterwards it can become a King's Indian Defence (g6), Queen's Indian Defence (e6 then b6), Nimzo-Indian (e6 then Bb4) etc.
What is the Kings Indian etc? and I thought going Indian on an opponent means that you would copy their opening, is that wrong or right?
05 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthw"Indian" refers not to the knight, but to the fianchettoed bishop- Kings Indian is fianchetto on the kingside- Queens Indian Defense, a fianchetto on the queen side. The indian is the bishop hiding behind the "tree"(the g pawn or b pawn), firing his arrows down the long diagonals. The politcally correct want to change the openings name to "the ruling figureheads native american defence".
Indian defences are where you reply to 1. d4 with Nf6. There are quite a few ways it can develop - depending on what you play afterwards it can become a King's Indian Defence (g6), Queen's Indian Defence (e6 then b6), Nimzo-Indian (e6 then Bb4) etc.
05 Jun 06
Originally posted by 33movesBut there's no fianchetto in the nimzo or bogo indians.
"Indian" refers not to the knight, but to the fianchettoed bishop- Kings Indian is fianchetto on the kingside- Queens Indian Defense, a fianchetto on the queen side. The indian is the bishop hiding behind the "tree"(the g pawn or b pawn), firing his arrows down the long diagonals. The politcally correct want to change the openings name to "the ruling figureheads native american defence".
The term is nothing to do with native Americans - it is a term of ridicule from the early 20th century (or before). These openings, which contradict the classsical principles by not contesting the centre with pawns, were considered so outlandish that they had to originate from an outlandish part of the world, hence Indian.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikePlease don't confuse the issue by using facts- my story is clearly more fun and should get a rec- I 've never had one, and its starting to hurt my feelings.ðŸ˜
But there's no fianchetto in the nimzo or bogo indians.
The term is nothing to do with native Americans - it is a term of ridicule from the early 20th century (or before). These openings, which contradict the classsical principles by not contesting the centre with pawns, were considered so outlandish that they had to originate from an outlandish part of the world, hence Indian.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI thought it was soldiers in the British army coming back from India "where they had learned the formations from native Indians, who were playing a slightly modified version of chess." -- or has Bill Robertie (Winning Chess Openings) lied to me once again?
But there's no fianchetto in the nimzo or bogo indians.
The term is nothing to do with native Americans - it is a term of ridicule from the early 20th century (or before). These openings, which contradict the classsical principles by not contesting the centre with pawns, were considered so outlandish that they had to originate from an outlandish part of the world, hence Indian.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI don't know, and there aren't really specific formations in Indian defences.
I thought it was soldiers in the British army coming back from India "where they had learned the formations from native Indians, who were playing a slightly modified version of chess." -- or has Bill Robertie (Winning Chess Openings) lied to me once again?
Maybe it is a combination of the 2 versions - these people were playing new outlandish openings, and people coming back from Indian recognised the approach?
06 Jun 06
I believe that an early version of chess was played in India, before it then propagated through Europe, etc. In this early version, the pawns were not yet allowed to move 2 squares from their starting position.
Hence, an "Indian" defence is so called because it appears to play according to these old rules... the pawns often move 1 square during the opening (g6, e6, d6, or b6).
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by VarenkaBut only against 1.d4?
I believe that an early version of chess was played in India, before it then propagated through Europe, etc. In this early version, the pawns were not yet allowed to move 2 squares from their starting position.
Hence, an "Indian" defence is so called because it appears to play according to these old rules... the pawns often move 1 square during the opening (g6, e6, d6, or b6).
By this reasoning, we'd have the French-Indian and the Caro-Indian.
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by c guy1It is not the fianchetto which gives Indian defences their name!
ironicly i just started studying indian openings, the reason those two are considered Indian is how 'hypermodern they' plus they can transition easily to a fianchetto at any time
Otherwise the Sicilian Dragon would be considered an indian defence, for example.
06 Jun 06
I was told that the Indian Defences were named as Indians in the 1920s by the classically-minded players, who thought the defences looked funny - as did Indians. The name was thus a racist insult. Presumably at the time, everyone thought the QGD was the only 'correct' way to play, and the Hypermodernists were regarded as madmen, or something. I dunno. I had always supposed one of black's bishops to be the Indian piece, and that it was novel decisions for the time v 1.d4 with that piece that were named Indians; however, it equally makes for the g8 knight to be the Indian, playing 1. ... Nf6 rather than the classical 1. ... d5 for the QGD.
However I have never found any comprehensive and convincing history on how all the Openings got their names. I'd be intereseted to know. Isn't Benoni some Hebrew name from some tragic myth or something?! If so - wt...
06 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeIn both the French and Caro-Kann, Black will advance a pawn two squares on move 2, and the initial e6/c6 is done to directly support a central strike with d5.
But only against 1.d4?
By this reasoning, we'd have the French-Indian and the Caro-Indian.
"Indian" defences can have many moves before a pawn is advanced two squares. Often the pawns are moved one square to primarily allow the bishops to develop.
So I don't follow your reasoning. Do you agree that an earlier Indian variant of chess had the limited pawn move?