[Debate] Opening Naming Conventions (How do we name new openings?)

As I'm sure you know, there are many openings that can appear in 4 player chess. There are still many openings yet to be discovered in all variants as well.

Here I propose to you two questions. Answer as honestly and critiquely as you like, but keep things constructive. If you have an opinion on something, give us your reasons! Convince the rest of us...

The theme of this debate: How do we name new openings?

1. Should 4PC openings be named after openings found in regular chess?
- Should they have their own names unique to 4 player chess? Should they be some combination of both?

2. Should the 4PC variants have different names for identical positions?
- i.e, should an opening in Teams be given the same name as an opening in FFA? Should openings in Teams and FFA have seperate names even if they have identical positions?

1. No.

2. FFA and teams should have same opening names

1. Have their own names. 

2. Yes.

Pretty much every opening has its own name already. Essentially, the creator of the opening or the leading expert in the opening gets to name it.

As for FFA and Teams, yes they should have the same names in both Teams and FFA.

Creators have rights of course. I think this is something we should always consider when new openings come about, particularly if they are unique and non-trivial.

As for trivial openings, particular those where only Red, or only Red and Blue, have made the first move then I fall into the camp the suggests we could have our own names that are different to the patterns found in 2PC since we have a wholly different game play and style from 2PC. Doesn't mean we can't take names or inspiration from 2PC, maybe even in some cases a combination of both would be appropriate?

For similar reasons, I fall into thinking that FFA and Teams might benefit from different names because different gamestyles are employed because of positions. Crossovers might work though and some mixing is okay.

TLDR:

1. Different to 2PC

1. Mostly different names for Teams and FFA

(I just notticed I didnt phrase the second question well, so I will update that right now)

1. Yes and yes. The starting moves usually reflect on 2pc openings, like move 1. Beyond that they should have their own name.

2. No. Moves are the same, name should be the same.

1. Yes
2. Yes

I think we have general openings, FFA openings and team openings. Teams openings can be used in FFA when player try to play teams but this actually often fail and there are lines where players deflect when they do not see sign from the opposite that she wants to support the teams tactics. In the same time, some FFA-specific openings do not make sense in team setting, for instance promoting a pawn is normal for FFA as there you get queen at 8th cell, while in teams - way later.

I don't think they should be named after 2pc because it is a different game with different ideas behind the openings. Teams and FFA are also very different in the openings especially since you can't completely trust your opposite or communicate in FFA. Nevertheless if the positions are exactly alike it seems silly not to use the same names in such a case.