Talk:Zukertort Opening

WikiChess Discussion

A discussion of this page is occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#1._Nf3 SunCreator (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some named variations from chess.com A04_Zukertort_Opening

• A04: Zukertort Opening: Nimzo-Larsen Variation
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Lemberg Gambit
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Quiet system
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Ampel Variation
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Old Indian Attack
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Reversed Mexican Defense
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Santasiere's Folly
• A06: Zukertort Opening: Tennison Gambit
• A06: Zukertort Opening: The Potato
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Black Mustang Defense
• A04: Zukertort Opening: Ross Gambit

Merge with Reti?

I am against merging Zukertort and Reti. These days the Reti is the more specific 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. Bubba73 (talk), 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

See also the recent discussion at Talk:WikiProject Chess#1._Nf3. Quale (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They are two different things, although similiar. SunCreator (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the articles should be kept separate as well. This article covers the opening move 1.Nf3 and the transpositional possibilities; the Reti Opening article covers a variation where Black plays ...d7-d5 and where White counters that with c2-c4. Less than half of all chess games which start with 1.Nf3 wind up being the Reti described in the other article. I can see where the merge proposal is coming from however; the current Reti article spends several paragraphs explaining the transpositional possibilities of 1.Nf3, so there is a certain duplication of content. The reason this happened is probably that the Reti article is much older, and had the 1.Nf3 redirect pointing at it for several years. I think a better way to end this duplication is to move, or remove, the transposition content on the Reti article, and refer readers to the Zukertort (this article) if they want to read about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus is to not merge, so I'm removing the merge tag. Bubba73 (talk), 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, 1.Nf3 is often not given a name, but when it is, it's called the Reti. I don't recall seeing the name "Zukertort" applied to it. If this is in fact the case, I think the most appropriate thing to do is to merge this article into Reti Opening, and explain in the lead that in common parlance "Reti" can refer to both the line 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 as well as 1.Nf3 in general; while the name "Zukertort" has been applied to the latter in the past, it is not in current usage. We shouldn't be using obscure or deprecated names to title chess opening articles, per WP:COMMONNAME. Cobblet (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I second this. Zukertort's from the late 1800's, Reti's from the 1920's. I was just now trying to find games in which Zukertort opened with 1.nf3 and while I found one it wasn't easy for me to find it. Reti used 1.nf3 far more often. Chess.com one of the largest chess websites today has 1.nf3 simply referred to as the Reti Opening with no mention of Zukertort, see here: https://www.chess.com/openings/Reti-Opening. If you search for Zukertort Opening in Amazon.com you instead find mentions of the Colle-Zukertort Variation, an opening that is unrelated to 1.nf3. If however you search Amazon.com for Reti Opening you find books that teach you the Reti and they all open with 1.nf3. Dionyseus (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic content is intended to cover the totality of distinct concepts throughout time. It is also important that the originator of an opening is recognised. If this article's assertion that Zukertort pioneered the move long before its association with Réti is supported by evidence, that deserves to be recognised. Chess is also a game whose history and development is a particular object of study. I think it is particularly important if 1. Nf3 is a significant and discrete move that does not always develop into the established Réti Opening sequence in top-flight play that it be addressed separately. UncleDumu (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Dionyseus is right that the consensus of the sources is to use the name Réti for 1.Nf3 though. That seems to be the most important factor to me. Dayshade (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Reopened discussion

@Quale: I find @Cobblet:'s argument compelling above; have you seen it? Combined with seeing 1.Nf3 alone as the Réti in many high quality sources like the 2025 PCO you mentioned in another discussion, does this impact your view rejecting the proposed merger (for anyone stumbling upon this: see the April 2026 AfD link at the top of the page, which Erukx ended up supporting), or, barring that, the suitability of "Zukertort Opening" as a title, given that I'm not seeing that used at all for 1.Nf3? Dayshade (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't change my opinion, but I do acknowledge it and I think it's useful evidence that deserves consideration. I have been fully aware for years of the fact that many opening books don't distinguish between 1.Nf3 and the Reti proper in their nomenclature. This could be a good reason to make a change. Although you're unlikely to convince me that it should be changed, you and Cobblet and maybe one or two others (depending on whether anyone other than me prefers to distinguish the Reti system as only Nf3 plus c4 without d4) could certainly develop a consensus to make a change that would outvote my opinion and I wouldn't throw a tantrum about it. Here are some reasons why I don't favor calling 1.Nf3 the Reti.

1. Consider always when proposing this kind of a change that the wikipedia editors who created whatever structure you think is deficient probably had some reasons why they made the choices you don't like. An examination of this article in March 2009 might give some hints to why an anonymous person chose to distinguish between 1.Nf3 and 1.Nf3 2.c4 about 17 years ago.
2. It's ahistorical. The Reti system didn't get that name because Reti played 1.Nf3--that had been played decades earlier by many people including by Zukertort. The significance of the Reti system is the hypermodern approach of playing c4 without occupying the center with d4. In the deep recesses of my brain I seem to recall that some writing many decades before the birth of WP might have even considered the double fianchetto to be an important part of the Reti, but there's no doubt that that has not been a requirement for a very long time.
3. It's understandable why chess opening books group all lines after 1.Nf3 together under one rubric, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to follow. This is the only practical way for chess opening references to do it, but Wikipedia doesn't have the same organizational constraints that dead tree documents have, and even electronic repertoire books don't really have the same flexibility as Wikipedia. The chess opening books have much different purpose and goals than WP does as well, especially considering WP:NOTGUIDE. The sole purpose of chess opening books is to teach how to play an opening, and WP policy does not permit WP articles to do that. All this said, I do agree that WP should look at the organization of lines and nomenclature in chess opening books and adopt it when it makes sense for WP.
4. It's very common for 1.Nf3 to transpose to the QG or English and in fact English repertoire books will explain the advantages and disadvantages of angling for the English after 1.Nf3 (mostly to avoid the reversed Sicilian 1.c4 e5, I think). Calling 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 the Reti seems pointless to me. And I understand that all openings have transpositions but 1.Nf3 is extremely transpositional and saying "the Reti is extremely transpositional" to me seems needless and wrong because I recognize the Reti as the traditional system which is a particular scheme of development following 1.Nf3.
5. Some Reti books do seem to recognize the Reti as being a specific system and not simply anything after 1.Nf3. I don't have many opening books on the Reti myself so I'm limited in what I can find online, but the description of Building a Reti Repertoire (Semko Semkov, 2024), says "This book presents a multi-faceted approach to the Reti – 1.Nf3 d5, followed by c2-c4. The core of the proposed repertoire is the topical system 2.e3 Nf6 3.c4 and 2.e3 c5 3.c4 d4 4.b4." And Réti - Move by Move, (Sam Collins, 2020) says "This book examines what might be described as the “pure” Réti Opening. White starts with 1 Nf3 and intends to meet 1...d5 with the “Réti” response 2 c4.". Finally, in an older book that I think I might have somewhere in my library, Dynamic Reti (Nigel Davies, 2004), the first 8 chapters cover 1.Nf3 2.c4 lines with only chapter 9 (1.Nf3 f5 - Reti Dutch) and chapter 10 (others, 1...g6, 1...d6, 1...Nc6) covering anything but traditional Reti ideas or quick transpositions to the English. (And a repertoire book has an obligation to cover all reasonable replies.)
6. If you call 1.Nf3 the Reti, what do you call 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4? Apparently it could be the classical Reti or the pure Reti, but this is a nomenclature problem you force on yourself by conflating everything after 1.Nf3 as the Reti. Don't do that and this problem doesn't exist.

So, I think this is your strongest argument for a change so far. While I'm sympathetic to it, I think it's a little worse than what we do now for reasons explained above. I just wanted to let you know that I considered that argument and others years ago and have given this issue some thought. Interestingly I recall years ago some concern over the title of this article or perhaps a far more obscure White opening move article. A very wise chess editor (later to become an WP admin who is still around but unfortunately doesn't edit chess pages much in recent years) suggested simply naming the obscure opening move articles in chess notation, eg 1. Nc3 or 1. Nf3, as a means of avoiding arguments over which of the several obscure possible titles to use for the articles. (As you can see we have redirects for most or all of these.) Quale (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:MWOT. Just kidding. For #6, I'd probably put it as "Classical system" or "Main line" or something like that. Don't think I disagree with anything you said (except 2, because all names have to start somewhere and this one is still pretty old, and it doesn't seem like the Zukertort name was ever particularly prominent). Books seem very split. I should note lots of courses online use it to cover e.g. 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 ("Fianchetto Reti", sometimes) and 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 and so on. Did you have any more thoughts on the suitability of "Zukertort Opening" specifically? Zukertort seems to have played it a lot less than Réti and usually transposed to 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3. But there might not be a better option if you're ruling out Reti. Also, I think part of my concern is seeing tournament pages have openings listed as "Zukertort Opening" (e.g. Candidates Tournament 2026, round 5, which is really using that delayed Reti system that Semkov mentions). Should those be changed where possible? Dayshade (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I quite agree with the wise chess editor Quale mentions and think that the best title for this article is 1. Nf3. But I fear I might be in the minority. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty convincing though I'd still personally use Réti Opening as the general title per WP:COMMONNAME and then have a Terminology section that explains this, comparable to Italian Game#Terminology. I'd prefer 1.Nf3 (not 1. Nf3) as a title over Zukertort Opening. There's minimal support for Zukertort Opening as the name for 1.Nf3 outside Hooper and Whyld. Dayshade (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What do you think of moving all/many of the White's-first-move articles that lack agreed names? E.g. Dunst Opening to 1.Nc3? Dayshade (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support 1.Nc3 and 1.Nf3 as titles if you started an RM, yes. As for the Réti, I think the issue with whether it means the "reversed-Benoni" 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 or just 1.Nf3 leads me to favour 1.Nf3 as the title as a sort of natural disambiguation. Double sharp (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

1.d4 is algebraic notation for an opening move. Queen's Pawn Game is an opening name. There is a difference between name and notation. 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 transposes to the Queen's Pawn Game; it does not transpose to "1.d4". 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 transposes to the English Opening; it does not transpose to "1.c4". So I'm not convinced that the use of notation in these article names is appropriate. Cobblet (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you prefer Zukertort Opening over 1.Nf3? And do you still prefer moving to/merging with Réti Opening? Dayshade (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I would, because we do have one reliable source for Zukertort Opening, while none have been brought forward for 1.Nf3 as a name. The move to Reti night still be appropriate, but at the very least I'd have to look at what's been published since my last comment in 2013, and personal matters prevent me from spending much time here these days. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether you call it 1.Nf3 or the Zukertort, though, it seems to me that a natural sort of article on 1.Nf3 is mostly about how it is as a transpositional tool, as aside from the Réti and KIA it doesn't seem to have much independent existence. After all, a move that could reasonably develop as 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 (Queen's Pawn), 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 (Réti), 1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 (English), 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 (Sicilian), 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 (Pirc/Modern), 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 (Larsen-like, reversed QID), 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 (KIA) etc. seems way too flexible to write anything else for: the main commonality is that you started with Nf3 as your first move and that that can fit into a ton of setups. (Although not all, of course, since a Black player who likes the Pirc/Modern but fears lines with f4 might reasonably reply 1...g6 to 1.Nf3 and eschew it against 1.e4.) It's similar to 1.g3 in that respect, I'd think. So I don't think the analogy to 1.d4 and 1.c4, where you can play a QGD despite having started with 1.Nf3 or 1.c4, quite holds here. Double sharp (talk) 05:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I just didn't think it was necessary to have it separated from Réti, but I don't mind it being separated either. The biggest thing that bothers me is that "Zukertort Opening" is just not really a term you see in use, and if it is used, it should imply 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3, and maybe even just the Zukertort System with e3, which is different from the Colle System (which has c3 instead of b3 and Bb2). Dayshade (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I certainly won't dispute that "Zukertort Opening" is not a familiar term, but in my opinion it's our best option here. I think 1.Nf3 doesn't have a widely recognized opening name because it isn't really a recognizable opening yet. I suspect that most games starting with 1.Nf3 quickly become Queen's Pawn openings or the English, along with some Reti's and KIAs. The frequency of truly unique developments after 1.Nf3 is probably pretty small.

It isn't uncommon to to not really have a recognized opening after White's first move. Off the top of my head I'd say only 1.f4 and 1.Nc3 really allow White to choose the opening. (Correction: I should have included some other flank openings such as 1.c4, 1.b3, 1.b4, 1.g3, and 1.g4.) After 1.e4, 1.d4, or 1.c4 it's too early to know what opening it will be. The black ability to often choose the opening is one of the few small advantages that black has.

The reason I don't think 1.Nf3 is the name of an opening is that it isn't used as a name in common parlance. Chess opening names are used with definite (the) or indefinate (a) articles.

Q: What opening did you have in the first round?

Valid answers: "a Reti [Opening]", "the Reti [Opening]"

Invalid answers: "Reti" (needs an article)

Valid answer: "1.Nf3" (but more likely you would say "an English", "the QGD", etc.)

Invalid answer: "a 1.Nf3" (doesn't take an article)

Chess opening names in that usage always take an article. Because move notation never takes an article, move notation such as 1.Nf3 is not the name of an opening. Quale (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

At Candidates Tournament 2026, round 5, do you object to that game being called "a Zukertort"? Dayshade (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, has someone called it a Zukertort? If you're talking about Pragg. v. Esipenko, that game looks like an English to me. Quale (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. Looks like chessgames assigns it A06 due to the weird move order when it should be assigned A13. Dayshade (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line is the name "Zukertort Opening" may not be used much anymore, but it is a well documented historical name, and there is no other common generally accepted name specifically for 1.Nf3. 1.Nf3 as a redirect is fine, but a chess move in notation shouldn't be the main title of an article, and "Reti Opening" is usually understood to mean 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. By the way ECO codes are usually assigned to games on the basis of their opening moves regardless of transpositions. You'll even see a few "A00" openings reaching the same position as in the Pragg-Esipenko game after 1.e3. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, so should it be A06 English Opening instead of A13? And it seems it might count as "Agincourt" due to ...e6 while White avoids d4, but idk how widespread that term is. Dayshade (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The practice at chessgames is just to use the opening moves. In ECO, if a move transposes to a different code, they'll just have a footnote referring to this code. Whether an opening from some game or other is A00 or A06 or A13 after various transpositions seems like a fairly pointless argument to me. Not everything fits into a neat little box. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with changing label from Zukertort Opening to English Opening though? And I guess I'll just leave it as A13 then. Dayshade (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't really give a shit to be honest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)