Talk:Fred Defence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Old talk

I didn't know if this was for real or not. A Google search turns up about 100 hits. Here is a webpage listing unusal openings, and it is listed, for what that is worth. Bubba73 (talk), 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The opening (but not the name) is in my old copy of ECO, B00, note 1: 1. e4 f5? 2. exf5 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. Bd3 +/-. I would probably leave it out (i.e. delete the article) except that might be an example of what not to do. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of 1.f3 followed by 2.Kf2 being called the Fred; hadn't heard of this. But hey, Google shows it, and the opening scores 50% on chessgames.com (including three games between GMs Bernstein and Duras, though I'm not sure how serious these were). The Hippopotamus Defence survived a deletion vote easily, and that was when it referred to 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Nh6 3.c4 f6 -- the evidence for which consisted of one website by some unknown guy who played it twice against his computer, at fish setting, and scored .5 out of 2. (I've since added more respectable uses of the term, by real chessplayers.) By comparison, the Fred is eminently respectable. Krakatoa 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that it is respectable - a handful of games from a thematic match does not prove respectability - it proves only that my fellow-countryman Duras vas a very clever grandmaster, if he was able to defend 50% of his games after such an opening. I think that in the best case, this should be a redirect + a small remark in the article about King's Pawn Game. Nevertheless, Krakatoa, you should discuss it with User:FrozenPurpleCube on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#So many chess openings - his wish is to delete even mainstream openings from Wikipedia.

In my opinion, Hippopotamus is a quite another case - it was played at the very top level twice and there is a book about it. This cannot be claimed in the case of Fred. Greetings, --Ioannes Pragensis 09:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect request

Should be "Fred Defense" for consistency with other opening articles -- titles take capitals on every word. 213.249.135.36 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== Southern Fred ==.

I can't find any reliable source that calls 2... Kf7?! the "Southern Fred". Can anyone supply a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesslover96 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No but found Fried Fox here and here and here. By the way, I don't think these links are consider 'reliable sources' either, reliable would be from a publisher(book or online) or a expert website (like FIDE, ECO or ICCF official sites), not a personal site which I think all these are. You maybe aware of the incorrect naming of the 'Wade Defense as 1.d4 d6' from unreliable source when in fact that name was incorrect for the position. ChessCreator (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit just realised my mistake with those links as this is the Fred Defence and the Barnes Defence. There is a Fred link here but it's certainly not a reliable source being a user post, likewise the post here and here calling it the 'True Fred'. ChessCreator (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I was last at "Wade Defense", I was wondering why this name was used, as it is incorrect. The first source ChessCreator supplied was not at all reliable, as I was the one who made the post!! Chesslover96 (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)