It is the beginning of the closed game, which is what the article says.

Seems like a vacuous nitpick.

Pedantry might as well be correct: calling q2-q4 "the beginning of a closed game" hides the fact that it's also the beginning of many other validated openings: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._d4

Advancing the queen's pawn 2 squares is a very common first move in chess at all levels. It's disingenuous to call this the beginning of any one of the specific possible openings in the above list.

And calling "It was the best of times" the beginning of a famous Dickens quote hides the fact that it's also the beginning of many other valid English sentences, I suppose.

There is nothing incorrect about the article's statement.

Context is everything, and I think your example only highlights how unhelpful it is to specify that q2-q4 is the beginning of the closed game.

I think most English speakers would agree that Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities is a notable outlier of what is expected after "It was the best of times." That's the exact work of literature that popularized the phrase.

By contrast, mention q2-q4 to any "chess speaker" and they won't be specifically prompted to think of the closed game at all.

Yeah that's bullshit. If you tell a chess player 1.d4 then d5 is going to be one of the first things that comes to mind. Even if they prefer a different response, like Nf6, d5 is certainly going to be prompted.

Uh, okay, technically true, touché.

But it's "the beginning" of roughly 50% of all chess games ever played. It seems very strange to call out one particular line it _might_ end up being the beginning of.

It's also "the beginning" of game 2 of the 1929 Bogoljubov-Alekhine world championship match, among millions of others, after all.

Using one potential endpoint as the point of reference to anchor to is a classically human thing to do. It doesn’t particularly matter that they chose Closed or Bogol-Alek. It just matters that they conveyed their thought to others with enough accuracy to get the point across.

Asking the question “why did they think of Closed first and not, for example, Bogol-Alek?” is to ask why someone sees a porcupine in a Rorschach blot. Everyone’s mind has different memory anchors, and they are not produced reliably or with regard for logic and reason.

It still worked, though :)

Not if you play chess. 1. d4 is played probably more than half the time in professional games. It can lead to lots of different openings, closed and open (but not at the same time).

Really? I though 1. e4 was more common. TIL!

e4 is more common. d4 is second.

> (but not at the same time)

Nice reference.

Closed game is 1. d4 d5. There are quite a few opening lines that start with 1. d4, but do not continue into the closed game.

Which does not change the fact that 1. d4 is the beginning of the closed game.

Yes, and the history of American football starts at Big Bang :)

Is it? I mean, I'm not a chess expert, but can we actually call a chess game open or closed from only the first move?

1.d4 d5 is called the Closed Game. It's the name of the opening, just like the Ruy Lopez or the Benko Gambit.

oh, today i learned there are opening moves called the "Open Game" and the "Closed Game" and there are also "open" and "closed" games in chess.

I am not a strong player, so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that 1. d4 d5 games tend to be more closed than 1. e4 e5 games, because it's less easy for the center pawns to get taken (because they are defended by the queens).

If any stronger player wants to comment, I'd be interested to know whether this is indeed the main reason 1. d4 d5 games tend to lead to more closed positions.