I Played White
Hi! 👋
The "Bird Opening" position:
...Black boldly plunged the queen deep into White's territory, only to be confined.
So in this, ...
⬆️ That is a description done backwards.
Let's observe.
You can use your left and right arrows on your keyboard or use the mouse scroll to see the moves back and forth on the chessboard. But first, click the board.
Bird Opening
Bird Opening is taken from Bird's Opening, named after 19th-century English master Henry Bird (1830–1908) who championed 1.f4 for decades.
As chess authorities moved toward standardising opening nomenclature, the possessive was dropped in favour of treating the name as a descriptive label rather than one of ownership — much like "Victorian" rather than "Victoria's".
🤔
The Nomenclature
Continuing "Victorian" rather than "Victoria's".
Well if we're genuinely following the "Victorian" logic, it shouldn't be "Bird Opening" at all. "Bird's" then SHOULD become Birdian or Birdesque or some such nonsense. "Bird" as a standalone label is actually neither one thing nor the other — it's not a proper possessive like "Bird's" and it's not a proper adjectival derivation like "Victorian". It's just a surname standing there, grammatically homeless, not quite an adjective, not quite a noun, just a name plonked in front of "Opening" and told to get on with it.
"Victorian" at least had the decency to transform itself grammatically. "Bird Opening" just stands there looking slightly underdressed. Slightly.
⬆️ Let's try that. "Bird's" ➡️ "Bird", so "Victoria's" ➡️ "Victoria" (not Victorian).
- Ah yes, a fine piece of Victoria furniture.
- She's wearing a very Victoria dress.
- The Victoria values were quite strict, weren't they?
Just Queen Victoria's name sitting there bare and bewildered, doing adjectival work it was never trained for.
🤔
But it does sound like a brand or a type/kind. Acts as a noun modifier. Such as LG TV, Samsung washing machine, NHS nurse, BBC journalist, Tesco cashier ⬅️ no possessive there.
Welcome to Victoria™. Fine repressed furniture for the discerning household. Est. 1837.
Absolutely no connection to an actual queen whatsoever.
Right next to "Bird Openings" — the chess equipment and ornithology enthusiast shop.
Next to "Birb Quarters" — the rounded-aves pub.
⬆️ You see, Bird was a person, similar to Victoria. Not a brand, organisation, institution. Person.
Hooper and Whyld: We see no issue here! (Kamen Rider hero poses. 🪠🚽🧴🛁🚿)
And then we have the "King's Indian Defence", "Bishop's Opening", "Alapin's Opening" somehow holding onto their possessives to this day, and absolutely no coherent explanation for any of it.
"Indian Defence", not "Bannerjee's Defence". No no. The entire NATION defence. Written by an anonymous bloke which first appeared in Chess Player's Chronicle on 22 October 1884. ⬇️
An example of the rare Indian Defence, so called on account of its introduction by the celebrated Indian Chess Player, the Brahmin Moheschunder Bannerjee, in his games against Cochrane.
⬆️ As if the entire nation of INDIA did the defence casually. And he just represented the culture.
And the truly staggering part is that Bannerjee was playing chess that Europeans hadn't even conceived of yet — introducing what would become the "Grünfeld Defence" some 38 years before Ernst Grünfeld was even born — and he gets filed under a geographical adjective whilst Grünfeld gets his actual name on it.
And of course, not "Grünfeld's Defence".
It didn't become Austrian Defence, innit? — Well because people in Austria didn't... — Didn't what? — Austria! Ululu!
Master Po once said:
(Sepia flashback.)
Master Po: Who sails first... names first. And so it is taught.
Grasshopper: But Master, Bannerjee arrived at the Grünfeld Defence 38 years before Grünfeld was even born!
Master Po: Futile is a word, Grasshopper.
Grasshopper: You are correct, Master.
⬆️ But anyway, let's be fair. The earliest recorded use of "Indian Opening" was actually in J. Löwenthal's The Chess Congress of 1862, published in 1864 — annotating a game between one Valentine Green and Louis Paulsen. The note reads:
Our efforts to trace this move to its inventor, by examining the various works treating upon the principles of the openings, have been fruitless. We find no mention made of it by either ancient or modern writers. Mr Green, however, informs us that this opening is common among the native players in Hindostan. We propose, therefore, to name it “the Indian Opening”.
⬆️ Snapshot from Chess Notes by Edward Winter about Indian Openings.
And there we have it.
"Native players in Hindostan". By what number of samples, that? One? Two? One? Imagine if everyone in that place actually played ONLY that particular opening. It's not... a mandate, it's a game. Not the most universally efficient or effective opening. They could open their shirt first instead of moving a pawn.
"Indian Opening" in this context is 1.e4 e5 2.d3. Indeed, it is.
⬆️ Imagine if that were mandatory, like mandatory military service, but rooted in their culture.
One bloke Rajeev, played defence, instead of
1.e4 e5 2.d3,
he did
1.e4 f5 2.exf5.
Then Rajeev would be put in a display for the entire village to smear him with coconut milk.
We do not do DURAS GAMBIT, RAJEEV! (Smears coconut milk.)
Despicable! Hmppfft. (Smears coconut milk.)
Oi Rajeev mate, this coconut milk tastes good. (Licks his own fingers.)
"Mr Green, however, informs us..." MR GREEN. One bloke! One bloke who visited "Hindostan", watched some locals push pawns, came back to London, and casually named an entire category of chess openings after a subcontinent of hundreds of millions of people based on his personal anecdote over tea!
And to top it off, the opening 1.e4 e5 2.d3 is now called "Leonardis Variation". Giovanni Domenico di Leonardis was a chess master at the court of King Philip III of Spain, active roughly between 1578 and 1621. A 16th-century Italian-Spanish court player, essentially. So Löwenthal's original "Indian Opening" in 1862 was specifically 1.e4 e5 2.d3 — the very same moves as the "Leonardis Variation".
And surely, not "Leonardis' Variation".
Leonardis had been playing and analysing 1.e4 e5 2.d3 since the 16th century, a good 300 years before Löwenthal wrote that note. And then Mr Green visits "Hindostan", watches some locals play what is essentially Leonardis' old passive opening, comes back to London, and Löwenthal slaps "Indian Opening" on it — completely unaware that an Italian court master had already been doing the same thing three centuries prior.
So the original "Indian Opening" wasn't even originally Indian. It was Italian. From the 1500s. Leonardis was there first. And nobody knew.
And "Hindostan", not "Hindustan". They couldn't even spell the place they were casually naming openings after.
Then by 1884 the term had QUIETLY migrated and reattached itself to Bannerjee's fianchetto-based games against Cochrane, which began with 1.d4 Nf6. Entirely different pawn structure, entirely different chess philosophy, entirely different first move.
And then we have "Nimzo-Indian Defence" (Aron Nimzowitsch), "Bogo-Indian" (Yefim Dmitriyevich Bogolyubov), "Neo-Indian" — keeps on rolling, that. No — Hang on, should we revisit this? — No.
"Caro-Kann Defence". Two people — Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann — and somehow their names just got hyphenated and left there together, no possessive for either of them, not "Caro-Kann's Defence", not "Caro's and Kann's Defence", just... both surnames stapled together with a hyphen, floating in front of "Defence" like two blokes who showed up to the same party wearing the same outfit and decided to just roll with it.
And at a glance, it does look and sound like a VILLAIN from Super Sentai. —
I'm Caro! 👀
I'm Kann! 👀
(Transformation poses. 🫳🫲🫴🖖)
(💥 Transform into a chessboard with tentacles and two snouts.)
We are the defence monster! 1...c6 POWER!
HAHAHA!
We are one.
(Villain poses. 🤌🤸♂️💪🤏🫵🤘)
HAND OVER the wine! We are defending the party's customer from drunkenness!
HAHAHA! We mean GUESTS. HAHAHA!
No wine? What party is this?
And by the time anyone did try to standardise it — FIDE in 1933 — it was already far too late.
And therefore, this is comical.
Latvian Gambit: Oi, mate. I'm rather properly named here.
Oh, really?
Latvian Gambit: On second thought, never mind.
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit, Alekhine-Chatard Attack, Arkell-Khenkin Variation: All hail the Caro-Kann Defence Monster! 🙇♂️ For their party wine confiscating technique is unchallenged!
Alekhine's Defence: I still have my possessive! Long live me!
Bird Opening: Ah. Yes. One does not require an apostrophe to retain one's dignity.
Jean-Claude Van Damme: (Claps. 👏👏👏) Why am I here?
Duras Gambit: I have no apostrophe since the beginning. Because my name is "Duras". Duras', Duras's. As's. Ne, děkuji.
Hooper and Whyld:
... Well, Hooper said to omit the apostrophe from "Bird's". No, I said that. We BOTH said it.
We are one! 👀 👀 💥
We are the Hooper-Whyld Apostrophe Mechabratwurst!
(Ultraman hero poses. 🫴 🫷 🤸 🤘 🫵)
(Oxford anthem — instead of Oxford's anthem — plays in the background:
in D flat diminished
🎵🎻🎶)
Continuing the comic. ⬇️
M. Murphy sera battu par un monsieur qui n'entendait cependant rien aux échecs.
⬆️ Taken from PROPHETIES POUR 1859, PAR CHAM — page 3
Cham = Charles Amédée de Noé (1819–1879).
Cham = Ham = Noah's son. Noé = Noah.
Comments
Post a Comment