Hi, I'll review this article. I'm more of a Nimzo-Indian fan myself, but this opening certainly has merit :) I'll have comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, so am I :) I do have a question that I couldn't find answered in WP:MOS: is the use of vide infra and vide supra or their abbreviations discouraged? There are several places in this article where I want to refer to things said earlier/later and while wikilinks help, I still need text I can wikilink. Or maybe you can suggest ways I could organize things better. Thanks for your help and I look forward to your comments. Cobblet (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I thought this was a very well-written article, and I enjoyed reading it. Below are some suggestions for you to consider. I'll spot-check some of the sources soon. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
first paragraph of "Initial moves" needs a citation
""unfortunate" "extravagance"" are those central quote marks needed?
InSecrets of Modern Chess Strategy, Watson quoted Nimzowitsch as saying "unfortunate extravagance", but according to Keene's Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal the full quote appears to have been "Marshall permitted himself a few extravagances in the openings at New York; an unfortunate affair in a top class tournament." Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the name "Modern Benoni Defence" had appeared in print by 1957." in what? Was this the first known use of the name?
The source in which it appears is cited. I don't know if this was its first mention in print, but it's the oldest mention I could find using Google Books. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"he wheeled out the Modern Benoni" should avoid idiomatic expression in encyclopaedic prose
"a few years later, he had given up the opening altogether." is this fact sourced in one of the citations that follows the end of the next sentence?
Reading on, I see that article twice states that Nunn gave up the Benoni because of the Taimanov attack, but only the second instance is cited. Consider removing the first instance.
Done, and I've reworked the discussion in the History section to take a more general viewpoint; the details remain in the Taimanov Attack section. Cobblet (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"By the end of the decade, the Modern Main Line had also emerged as a dangerous weapon for White, which only compounded Black's troubles." source?
"According to Donner, while he spent over two hours on the game, Tal used only fifteen minutes." Is this detail relevant for this article?
It's definitely not essential and I wouldn't mind removing it. I included it to illustrate how easy Black's play can be (for Tal, anyway!) and how even grandmasters can have trouble coping with it. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"… Tal would go on to win his first Soviet championship." Perhaps unnecessary detail? If you disagree, then at least add a source.
Source added. I wanted to provide some context for this historically notable game and I reworked the discussion a little to reflect that better. Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
end of first paragraph of "Variations" needs a citation
"Here theory divides into three major branches:" Need a source for this and for "White also has several important alternatives, the most popular of which are:" soon after
Palliser's Chess Developments: Modern Benoni divides the 7.Nf3 lines into three chapters in exactly the way I mentioned. I could cite the book but I'm not sure what page number to cite—the table of contents, perhaps? With respect to statements regarding popularity, these are generally observations I glean from databases (chesstempo.com is what I use these days.) If this is considered WP:OR I could remove the words "most popular". Cobblet (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General observations from chess databases sounds like OR to me ... probably best to remove those words. As for a source, you could cite the appropriate page range from Palliser's book. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Most popular" and "most common" changed to "popular" and "common". I forgot Palliser doesn't cover the Classical, so I've cited Franco instead. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"which was recently recommended for White" avoid the use of the dateable term "recently"; similar issue with calling Gashimov the "current" strongest practitioner ... is there a way to reword this?
according to Petrov (2013), Alekhine played the MB a few times "despite having stated it was not a good opening" (from the introduction). Worth including? Sasata (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which games Petrov had in mind here—I can't find a single example of him defending the MB. He did play 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 and 1.d4 e6 2.c4 c5 a couple of times but none of his opponents played 3.d5. He's also misquoted Alekhine—in the New York 1927 tournament book Alekhine writes "the intended mobilization plan is not to be condemned off-hand," which Keene also quotes correctly in The Evolution of Chess Opening Theory. Cobblet (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Reviewer Comment. I note that Marshall is given credit for the MB's 'invention' on three occasions (lede/photo/history). Whilst I can see that Keene may have inferred this in Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal, he chooses the word "introduced" rather than "invented". The reason for this word choice becomes more apparent in Palliser's Modern Benoni: Revealed pp.18-20, when he explains that the Modern Benoni concept first appeared in Alekhine-Capablanca, played earlier in the same tournament, and we can see that Marshall then develops the idea a step further. Notice Palliser also uses the term '"introduced" rater than 'invented'. It may depend on your definition of 'invent', but my dictionary mentions "an original idea" and for that reason I would probably change the wording slightly. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly there were previous games that featured the opposing pawn majorities that characterize the Modern Benoni. The earliest example I could find was Burn–Pollock, Hastings 1895. But the point of the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 move order is to force this pawn structure, and Marshall was the first person to play this way. Cobblet (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've spot checked a few sources and found them to be accurately represented. The sources are reliable and relevant for an article of this nature. All images have appropriate licenses. I'm confident that the article meets all of the good article criteria, and am happy to promote it at this time. Good work, and please write more articles! Sasata (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
