Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Split fast chess?

I think that the fast chess article may need to be split - making a separate article for the championship tournaments. The problem is that there is very little info about the championships. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be the added value of having separate articles ? SyG (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

One would be about fast chess itself, the other would be about the world championships. We have chess and world chess championship. OTOH, Correspondence chess lists the champions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created World Correspondence Chess Championship Mauropetrolo (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Chess960 also has the info about its championship in the main article, so I guess Fast chess should stay as it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Verbeterde List

I stumbled on Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List and that raises a couple of questions to me.

1) Is that really the accepted name, or just a name used locally (in the Nederlands) for self-glory ? Google did not show any relevant source, only circular references to Wikipedia. If you happen to have books on the Sicilian, could you please check what name this variation is really given ?

2) Is this variation notable enough to earn a full article ? Does anyone know if entire books have been devoted to this line ? (which I would personally view as a sure hint of notability)

SyG (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I saw the article about a week ago. It was originally named just "Verbeterde List" and was moved to the current name. To me, it seems short enough to be included in the parent article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems unproven and extremely dubious at this point. If Ftacnik's book is the only known reference, then I would want to know that he speaks of it in a 'global recognition' sense and doesn't just say something like ... known in the Netherlands as the Verbeterde List'. The latter would give it no gravitas at all. Also, I could be wrong, but doesn't Verbeterde mean 'enhanced' in Dutch? That would suggest to me that some annotator has casually labelled it an 'enhanced' version of the Najdorf, which is hardly grounds for the birth of a name. Generally, named variations arise after many years of practice and not as a result of an overnight trend or passing comment.Brittle heaven (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Google Translate, "Verbeterde" means "improved", so you are basically right. I think it should be merged. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

All right, I have sent the article to AfD. SyG (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability problems preventing player coverage

Being rather new to this project, I'm a little confused about how we establish notability for chess players. Pretty much, if there wasn't a biography written online about the player, there is little notability according to the number of secondary sources I find online.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are only confused about notability for chess players? The question of what is notable has been contended over the entire Wikipedia almost since its inception :-). There is nothing codified, but I don't think we have ever deleted a reasonable article about a Grandmaster. To my knowledge, national champions have at worst ended with "no consensus" at AFD as well, but it is possible that being a national champion in a small country without strong chess traditions will be insufficient. I believe that there have been cases where we have deleted International Masters, but an article on an IM is likely to be kept if there is a bit more to support an article, for example if the IM has authored some books that have been subject to independent reviews. In any case, the general notability guideline calls for independent secondary coverage in reliable sources so that the article has a foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is a root of the problem that we have less female chess players, especially non-BLPs.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  - Just one note regarding your initial post: There is no requirement that the source be online (or free, or in English for that matter). If you have a reliable book or magazine source for the player, then that is just as valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have one of these books?

Attack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics, by Ludek Pachman
The Brilliant Touch in Chess, by Walter Korn

If so, can you check the game Korn-Pitschak and tell which moves have evaluations (!, ?, etc). Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The game appears on pages 17-18 of Pachman's book. He gives 1...PxB! 2.R-B8 ch! KxR 3.Q-B5 ch K-K1 4.Q-B7 ch K-Q1 5.Q-B8 ch Kt-K1 6.Q-K7 ch! "and the game was given up as a draw." So, exclams for 1...PxB, 2.R-B8 ch, and 6.Q-K7 ch; no other punctuation. The game appears on page 16 of Korn's book. He is more parsimonious with the exclams, giving a double exclam to the last move (6.Q-K7 ch!!) and no other punctuation.

Pachman also analyzes second move alternatives for White (2.QxQ PxR=Q ch or 2.QxKP Q-R5 ch 3.K-Kt1 Q-R7 mate). Both authors also note at the end that it's either stalemate if Black takes the queen, or a perpetual check on b7 and e7 if he declines it. Krakatoa (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

What about merging:

List of Presidents of the United States Chess Federation

and

Executive Directors of the United States Chess Federation

into United States Chess Federation? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that proposal. Quale (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Chuck Diebert notable? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see many third-party references. Furthermore, he's not a GM. In short, no notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent it to AfD. SyG (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles on other language Wiki's

Have created a list of German chess articles missing from the English Wikipedia. This might be useful to consider new articles or finding articles that have an interlanguage links missing. If there is interest in it's use and other languages are required let me know. Articles are only shown if listed on two Wikipedia's; started with German because it is quite large and tends to check articles for notability. Of course German notabilty may not pass English notability but it's a good start. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a no then. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not despair if answers are not coming as quickly as hoped :-) For my side I found your idea very interesting and useful, but unfortunately my knowledge of German is not sufficient to translate one of these. I speak fluent French though, so if the time needed to create such a list is not too much, I would propose to do the same for articles from the French Wikipedia, and maybe someone (or myself) someday will pick one of these and translate it ! You are essentially planting long-term seeds here ! SyG (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a great idea, thanks! I don't speak German myself, but I think google translate should provide enough details for for me to recreate an article here. U+003F^? 08:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Murray Turnbull

Is Murray Turnbull notable enough for inclusion? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not that I can see. We once had an article for a guy called Tom Pym - he won the British championship in his age group, but subsequently didn't progress in chess and his article was removed. So for consistency, I'd say this entry is no more deserving. According to the FIDE website, Turnbull doesn't even have an ELO rating! Brittle heaven (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Turnbull. SyG (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both you guys. This guys is nowhere near notable enough. I had no clue who he was despite having several master friends from the New England area, and having read "Chess Horizons" for several years, which even covers the blitz street masters on Harvard Square! As a player, he's decent national master strength, far below even IM, let alone GM caliber. I see that when the article was recommended for deletion, no consensus was reached. Can we nominate it for deletion again?

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it can be nominated again. It is done slightly differently. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such an amazingly fast reply! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and after scouring the various pages on deletion and nominating for deletions, I can't quite found how an article gets re-nominated. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the article about deleting articles. For a second Afd, see "second nomination" at part IV. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotlewi versus Rubinstein

Also Botvinnik versus Capablanca and Levitsky versus Marshall. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I came by here to ask about these new articles submitted for DYK. What's the notability criteria for individual games? Sasata (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We have discussed notability of players several times, and have a general agreement, but not for games. But there aren't very many individual games that have articles. Both of these are in major references My Great Predecessors and The Mammoth book of The World's Greatest Chess Games. (The Rubenstein game is also in 500 Master Games of Chess.) These games involve top players and have been acclaimed in sources. They are not as well known as The Game of the Century, The Immortal Game, and The Evergreen Game, but they are outstanding games. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So what's the criteria? Am I free to create, for example, articles for every game analyzed in MGP? Similarly, modern games of top players are often reported in multiple (reliable) sources, and analysed by GMs. Can articles be created for all of these games too? Sasata (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This game is often used as an example of a passed pawn breakthrough. Just google it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, I do not think having an article on each game presented in MGP would be a big problem. After all, we have thousands of articles on obscure chess players, having a few hundred articles on chess games would not hurt. SyG (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There aren't that many games that have their own article. I think only:

I think that doing all of the games in My Great Predecessors would be overdoing it, and also it would not be representative since it concentrates on world champions. Does someone want to weigh in on the criteria for a game notable enough to have a WP article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think something has to make the game special, like special names. The opera game can be considered special since I heard that Morphy played the game without looking at the board.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would propose the following criteria (all necessary, none sufficient):

game presented in several books, and preferably not books about openings. (and not books written by one of the players, neither).
game cited/recognised by some top-players as "special".

SyG (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think those criteria are reasonable, I might add that a game that generates wide interest beyond the chess community is also a viable criterion. In ancient times, that was my motive for initiating the Deep Blue-Kasparov Game 6 article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rotlewi-Rubinstein is one of the most famous chess combinations ever played, cited in dozens upon dozens of books about tactics OR classic games that I have read. It's also considered (by far) Rubinstein's most famous game, and included in any of the dozens of books written about him. (Keep in mind Rubinstein was one of the original GMs, and one of the top 3 players in the world in his prime, behind only Lasker and Capablanca) Also, I like SyG's criteria!

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 January 2010‎ (UTC)

+ − = or WLD

Why don't we replace (+4, -2, =9) by something better, even (4W 2L 9D) would be clearer to most readers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably stick with the mathematical symbols out of choice. I'm not sure if either is any clearer than the other to a non-serious chess player (WLD = Width, Length and Depth in some walks of life), hence my preference would be to align with well respected texts such as The Oxford Companion To Chess (Hooper & Whyld). Worth noting that Sunnucks' and Golombek's Encyclopedias also follow the same format and so, assuming this is true of most chess books, beginners/students may benefit more from a consistent approach. If it isn't already covered, we could add an explanation to the article Chess Tournament - e.g. 'Reporting tournament results', if that helps. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure WLD is clearer than +-=. If we want something really clear, we would have to go for (4 wins, 2 losses, 9 draws). Better clarity, but longer... SyG (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The encyclopedias you list use the +-= format, but they are intended for people who are pretty familiar with chess. The general public is more familiar with win/loss/tie or something similar. The +-= format is likely to be unclear to the general reader of Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is a problem. The +-= designation is extremely intuitive and hardly even needs explanation. Moreover, it's the standard used in most chess articles and books. The argument that it's less clear than writing out wins and draws for those completely unfamiliar with chess seems besides the point. Algebraic notation (which is way more complex and less intuitive than +-=, by comparison) is also something people who don't know chess might be unfamiliar with. Should we abolish that too, and write out "white pawn on the square e2 moves two squares up to the square e4", instead? I should hope not. Also, isn't writing in-depth articles that can be understood by someone with no background on chess (although I would argue that +-= is so basic, one doesn't need any knowledge of chess to understand it) an unrealistic standard? Certainly, a Wikipedia article on Fourier Analysis makes the assumption that the reader knows how to add, subtract, and even integrate functions. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not beside the point - that is the point. Most of the readers of Wikipedia are not familiar with chess literature. Each article that uses algebraic notation has a box linking to the article explaining AN. In addition, if there is a diagram, AN is clearer. There is no similar explanation of +-=. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, but in many articles there are no moves or diags, only WLD data. (BTW, here's a formatting idea: W4.L2.D9 or 4W.2L.9D – it doesn't require any spaces, parens, or commas, and it keeps the scores together as a single entity—the match record.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, can you please not delete the previous discussion next time? I made several arguments for why +-= is the better choice that you simply went ahead and deleted. There were also some further objections Bubba73 raised that I answered. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but don't delete the discussion. Anyways, here's a copy and paste of my most salient points;

ChessPlayerLev, thanks for restoring the discussion, I was surprised to see that I somehow inadvertently deleted it, I really do not know how that happened! Rest assured I consider all Talk discussion sacrosanct and would never intentionally delete or modify anyone's comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no worries, then.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(+ - =) is so simple and intuitive, one can figure it out immediately just by looking at it. Again, while I normally hate to use personal experience, I've never heard of anyone, out of a few hundred students/fellow chess friends, that hasn't immediately understand this notation.
If math and science articles on Wikipedia presuppose some knowledge (quite extensive) of the material, why can't chess articles assume a far more limited, basic knowledge of the material, too? I notice you didn't answer this point at all.

As for why your specific WLD proposal is a poor idea, Ihardlythinkso, it's simply not ever used by actual chess players. A chess player reading your article (and believe me, the number of chess players reading chess articles on Wikipedia is not small compared to the number of non-chess players reading chess articles on Wikipedia!) would be completely confused by your WLD proposal. Well either that, or he/she would laugh and shake their head about it. To use an arithmetic analogy, how about instead of using "+" to denote addition, you were to change it to the word "plus", because "people who don't know arithmetic would get confused"? That would be a wrong choice, no? Chess players use (+ - =) It's the standard, and should be kept because of the two points above. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

ChessPlayerLev, you misunderstand. I wasn't advocating that +4 −2 =9 be abandoned or replaced. I was adding the idea that, if +4 −2 =9 *is* ever replaced by W4 L2 D9, that W4.L2.D9 or 4W.2L.9D be considered too. (If you would ask me what I think about the adequacy versus confusion of the current +4 −2 =9, my answer would be that I haven't really thought about it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Hopefully though, it won't come to that! :)ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Other symbols too

On a related matter, what is recommended for "upper hand": ( +- and -+ ) or ( +/- and -/+ )? (I've seen both.) And for "slightly better": ( += and =+) or ( +/= and =/+ )?

Second, if ECO-type symbols familiar to players are recommended (as opposed to English or English abbreviations for non-players per Bubba), then isn't it a shame there isn't a special set of correctly-configured evaluative symbols available for use in articles? (I.e., for the two above, plus "decisive advantage", "unclear", and "with compensation".) For sure they could be coded as {{ }} templates.

Don't know if I agree about symbols versus some sort of English/English-abbreviated equivalents, I think Bubba might be right. (When readers run into the symbols, they aren't directed anywhere – ala notation tag – to be able to know how to interpret them! Shouldn't they have access to a "key" somewhere, somehow?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea-suggestions for symbol-generating templates:

{{wld|_wins_|_losses_|_draws_}} – symbols for win/loss/draw record
{{slight|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black is slightly better
{{plus|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black has upper hand
{{win|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black has decisive advantage
{{unclear}} – symbol for position is unclear
{{with comp}} – symbol for with compensation

And maybe, if the generated symbols could all be links too, taking the reader to a single page-key interpreting what all the symbols mean!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Ok, I see there is &plusmn for ±, but no "&mnplus" for Black. And &infin for ∞, but no "with comp" version. And I see &minus can be used to improve the look of +- or +–, to +−. (That's good!!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Some sources assign a different meaning to the symbols. For example, in NCO +− is "white is winning" and ± is "white is much better". I would linearize the second as +/- to distinguish the two. I don't think this matters for our articles, as in wikipedia these should always be written out in English prose. Perhaps the symbols would of more value in wikibooks:chess, although really my feeling is that you can do a lot of chess writing without needing them. There is a chess openings wikibook somewhere, and that might be the place for them. Quale (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The NCO symbols seem to match ECO meanings (+− for "White has a decisive advantage" and ± for "White has the upper hand").

So to summarize, the convention for articles is to use prose instead of symbols +−, +/−, and +/=, but to continue to use (+ − =) for game records (as Bubba questioned above)? (In articles using tables of game records, I've seen + − = meanings spelled out, but that would be cumbersome in articles without long tables of records, such as article Bobby Fischer.)
p.s. I thought "Wikibooks" were compilations sourced directly from WP articles (is that incorrect?). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are both plus-minus and minus-plus characters available in Unicode: ± and ∓. Also, I think Ihardlythinkso's idea about templates was good and would be worth implementing. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My favorite is ∞, but unfortunately I don't think we should actually use it in our articles. Quale (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No single character for +/= or =/+ otherwise it might be suitable with ±, ∓, and ∞. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the Numeric Annotation Glyphs article, ⩲ and ⩱ are, in fact, single character +/= and =/+ symbols. Unfortunately the Linux system I am using at the moment does not know how to render those symbols. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The easiest in order to show annotation symbols is to use a font and then translate PGN NAGs into the corresponding symbol. See the third chessboard here for an example.Casaschi (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Marc Esserman

About Marc Esserman:

Is he notable
some of the main editors of this article seem to edit nothing else. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything notable. There was little in the way of national or international press coverage. Clearly there was some coverage of his defeating strong GMs like Van Wely and Benjamin, but then hasn't every IM occasionally beaten a GM? That's almost a necessary part of getting your IM norms, uness you're very lucky to have other results fall in your favour. We normally look for some extra point of notability to elevate an IM to these pages, but he doesn't have the usual distinguished coach (eg Dvoretsky) or prolific writer (eg John Watson) facets to supplement his playing. Neither did I notice a standout tournament win, or anything else exceptional that might suffice. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I put a notability tag on it, but it was removed today. I PRODed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The PROD was removed - now on AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Having grown up playing chess during roughly the same time he did, I've always known who Marc Esserman was. (And was quite honored to meet him when I beat his older brother in a tournament) Anyways, Bubba73 is correct in stating that he is only an IM. However, Esserman is very active in the national chess scene, as detailed in the article, and was a notable, famous scholastic player. He also he has a very high rating for an IM and still seems to be improving. He might obtain a GM title in the near future.

As such, I would probably call the article "borderline". He's not even remotely as notable as someone like Dvoretsky or John Watson, obviously, but I don't mind having an article on him here.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The article went through the AfD process and was kept. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Had I originally participated in this discussion, I certainly would have agreed with Lev-Esserman's a marginal case, even though the kid's gotten good since we met at Woburn 2001; he was 'only' 2150 then. As such, I reopen this discussion only to note that I've proposed two AfD elsewhere, those being Bernard Parham and Loren Brigham Laceste, neither of whom are close to Esserman in strength. Hushpuckena (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You put notability tags on those two but did not PROD (Propose for deletion) them or AfD them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Automatic updated FIDE rating in infobox (by bot)

Hello all chess portal enthusiasts!

I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to ask this question (and hope you can point me into the right direction otherwise) - but lets try... ;)

In German wiki we use an automatic system driven by w:de:User:DrTrigonBot to feed the template w:de:Vorlage:Elo-Punkte with the actual FIDE ratings (elo numbers >= 2400 as a relevancy cut-off since the full list is is about 1.4MB) which are used in the infobox to display the correct rating. This is a quite comfortable way to have always the most actual ratings (+/- 1 day) without the need of any user spending time which could be of more use elsewhere. And it would be a good thing for me (as operator of this bot) in order to have a first task setup in order for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#DrTrigonBot to progress.

To summarize - in order to have an automatic update on the fide players ratings we would have to:

setup a template (similar to w:de:Vorlage:Elo-Punkte)
add the FideID as parameter to the existing Template:Infobox chess player and change the template to use the data from 1.)
slowly migrate the existing infoboxes to use the FideID parameter instead of rating

I would be happy to apply the points 1.) and 2.) in order to enable this feature for you, if this would be ok?

Please have a look, thanks a lot for your feedback and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I will wait and see what others are saying, but this looks fantastic ! Thanks for pointing that out ! SyG (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be wonderful. I have never updated a FIDE rating, but quite a bit of editor time is spent doing it, and I have questioned the value of spending so much human time doing it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

First thanks for your positive replies! Second we have now 2 comments after a period of 2 days... would you like to wait longer or shall I start implementing this? ;) Thanks again and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would add my appreciation if this can be rolled out. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Good to me as well, so I think you can go ahead ! SyG (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok cool! Here is what I did:

created Template:Elo rating which does currently contain 1 data set only and should get filled by the bot tonight
modified Template:Infobox chess biography in order to include a new parameter 'FideID' (analogue to dewiki)
modified Template:Infobox chess biography/doc in order to include an example for the 'FideID' parameter
the 'rating' parameter can still be used in order to provide additional info
if the 'FideID' parameter is not given or no rating available for the given 'FideID' the previous behaviour is used

now you have to take a look and decide what minor changes have to be done in order to have the look and feel you like. I added a link to the 'FIDE Chess Profile' in order to be easily able to check the corectness of the FideID used and to have access to actual world ranking. Then - finally - if everybody is happy the last step 3) has to be done too. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just curious - what do you think about the result? Anyone? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

So to finally inform you all; the bot request was approved - thus the bot will continue to run and update the data - feel free to use them by implementing item 3) and enjoy! Thanks and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way; what about a bot request to do a single bot run in order to implement 3) ? This would involve searching the FideID's for each (active) player and modify the infobox accordingly. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you haven't gotten much response lately! Excellent idea, and I am sure everyone is in favour of this. So is the bot up and running? Has it done any edits yet? Note that FideID's could be read from the template template:fide which is in the external link section at the bottom of most active chess players, see eg Levon Aronian, first link in external links. Regards Voorlandt (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot is running since 30th of December as can be seen e.g. at Special:Contributions/DrTrigonBot but I am waiting on any response here. I adopted the infobox as well but got no feedback whether this was ok or not...?!? You are mentioning the template template:fide (which I did not knew till now) and in my opinion that should be integrated into the infobox (else we would have the info twice) as well... But I do not want to re-manage all your templates without any feedback... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found the new style very useful, and have added a FideID to various players. Can I ask why it the bot only adds players with ratings over 2400? U+003F^? 09:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

*phuuu* At least someone... ;))) Thanks a lot! The reason why we decided to use > 2400 only (was decided on dewiki in fact) was because else the page becomes huge (I think to remember something like ~1.4MB) have a look at e.g. this where you can see the full data is ~5MB. But we can raise/lower that value, e.g. all > 2000 as wished... (typically the people with low rankings are not the most intressting ones... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are performance issues, I would consider lowering the threshold, or perhaps having no threshold. Whilst most of the players we are interested in are 2400+, some (chess authors, say) are not. U+003F^? 13:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Performance and memory (or something else) should not be the problem since the bot runs on the toolserver and once a day only. I lowered the threshold to 2000 but you have to wait till 01:30 for the changes to take place (as you can see from history). Feel free to change it yourself and play around. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: After looking at dewiki again I recognized there simply all ratings below 2400 are still added in the conventional way - do not know why... may be they are assumed to change less often...? Just another way to go... ;) --DrTrigon (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As it seems I was a little bit too optimistic; the write action failed... you can get an impression by looking at the log-file (mainbot.log of Jan, 31th) - most of it's content is this write trial... I think I would have to split it into several smaller fractions in order to be able to write it to page - thus opened DRTRIGON-113 - I hope you are patient since at the moment I do not have that much time (it will definately get solved some time)?! The question now is if we want to wait with the bot run mentioned below until all data are present, or just replace all with >= 2400 in the bot run? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the changes to the infobox you did are perfect. Having the link to fide there instead of in the external links is very useful as well. Since we have so many players, it would be nice to have a little tool to add FideID to all the infoboxes (and like i said before, the id can in most cases already be found in the external link section). --Voorlandt (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I opened a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#Add 'FideID' parameter to chess infobox to find someone providing such a 'little tool' to us - hope this is what you like. The open question to me is whether we want to remove the template:fide in the same bot run since it is linked from ranking number already? Or do you want to keep it in the external links section (also)? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think it can then be removed from the external link section. But perhaps other people see this differently. Thank a lot for all your hard work in this! --Voorlandt (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To summarize the summary of the summary; For all articles containing the chess infobox, the fide template and having a ranking >= 2400 elo points, the bot run does move the fide id from fide template to chess infobox and remove the ranking there as well as the fide template. I will pass this to the bot run request (which was not sucessful till now... any idea why?). Thanks and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like we have a taker now? Cannot wait for it to happen. Thx again for all your efforts!--Voorlandt (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Done The job was done (by User:madman) and the task is closed now - thanks to everybody helping and supporting here!! Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DrTrigon, great job ! SyG (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

unpublished Houdini / Rybka / Crafty / Fritz = WP verifiable?

The question User:Erniecohen left at Talk:Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1#Bad analysis regarding WP policy on using advanced software analysis on games for chess articles, is a bit over my head. (Help, please? Thanks!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a short time ago, an editor added Rybca and Crafty analysis to Giuoco Piano. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And I see there's some Fritz 8 analysis in Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit. I'm sure there are even more examples already out there. (Is it a trend? Because editors see YouTube links freely posted to EL secs?) Anyway ... "The Giuco GETS A MAKE-OVER!!" :-O Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Imagine if this were allowed ... Then updates to latest move evaluations in articles would mirror frequency of updates to ratings in GM articles! Ha.

Ok, I addressed Halloween. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel there is no problem if, say, a GM cites a Houdini analysis. I would personnally see that as a reliable source. But now with the latest version of ChessBase and the new functionality "Let's Check" it seems Houdini's analysis may be stored automatically and dynamically in the game itself on ChessBase servers. See for example this ChessBase article. Would that count as a reliable source ? SyG (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it should. It doesn't just need to be when a GM cites Rybka, Houdini, or any other top chess program. Anyone can download and use these programs to analyze games, and these programs are now rated hundreds of points higher than Magnus Carlsen, the current #1 player in the world. However, care needs to be taken when citing these computer sources. If an engine evaluates some move as +0.15 while what the player chose is +0.10, that's essentially no difference, and can be disregarded. Programs like Houdini and Rybka will even change evaluation of the same move from one move to the next, anyways. However, if Houdini recommend some move that leads to an evaluation of -0.30 and instead the player made a move leading to -1.50, that is a significant blunder and will not change regardless of what engine you use, or which is considered the most powerful.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is unworkable to use computer analysis that is not cited by a reliable source. First, I don't think anyone can legally download commercial software like Fritz for free and use it to analyze games. That issue aside, there are multiple problems with this.

How do I check a claim of computer analysis in an article ...
1. When it's a chess engine I've never heard of and can't find? Maybe I've heard of it but it's an engine that's difficult or impossible to obtain any longer, such as an old version.
2. When I don't know the precise parameters that were used? Maybe the precise parameters are given, but few if any people have the unusual hardware configuration used. For some engines there might not be any settings that give repeatable results on faster or slower hardware. Essentially what we're doing is performing an experiment and reporting our results, and this is very dangerous original research territory.
What if Fritz, Rybka, and Crafty all give very different analysis? The article could list them all, but then we could try to put analysis from every version of every engine on list of chess software. Yes, when we have multiple published sources, possibly conflicting, we use editorial judgment to decide which to include and which to omit. But I think there are more practical means of making editorial decisions on published sources than there are on chess engines.
In addition to the problem of choosing between the large number of chess engines, how do editors decide which positions to include computer analysis for? Every single move provides an opportunity to include computer analysis from multiple engines. If this were done chess opening articles would be unreadable. For consistency the Open Game article should include computer analysis from Houdini, Rybka, and Fritz for every move starting from 1.e4. The Ruy Lopez would be two orders of magnitude worse if this sort of computer analysis were included.
New versions of chess engines are released frequently. Is someone going to check all the computer analysis included in our articles to see if it needs updates every time a new version is available? What Tal, Fischer, or Kasparov wrote about a chess position will remain of interest for many years to come, decades after their deaths. What the current version of Houdini reports about a chess position won't be of much interest in even 5 years.

I really don't see any reason to use computer analysis in wikipedia chess articles. It causes a host of problems with no compelling advantages. Quale (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Quale that we should avoid computer analysis in Wikipedia articles unless those analyses have been cited by an expert in another source. Computers are also not all that good at giving proper evaluations in the midst of theoretical openings. For an example, I refer to Raetsky and Chetverik's Starting out: Queen's Gambit Accepted on the drawish Exchange Variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qxd8+) where they write "Amusingly Fritz9 thinks White is up 1.42 pawns after this exchange of queens, but I can assure you that is not so!". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me answer Quale's objections point by point;

Well, how do you check that someone has properly cited a book reference in an article? Not everyone has a copy of Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors", for instance. Similarly, not everyone might have bought a copy of Rybka or Houdini. So what? There are some that do, and they can confirm or deny the validity of a cited suggestion.
Once again, this same concern can be applied to book references. My proposal is to just stick with the most popular, strongest programs. This isn't as hard as it sounds; there are published ratings for engines, and most engines are 3000+ rated. (Again, Magnus Carlsen, the strongest human player, is presently at 2835) Some engines are 3150+ rated. If an engine is 3000+ rated, (which is easily verifiable) its input should be allowed.
This is a fair point. It's definitely a target for possible abuse. However, ideally, this is a complete non-issue. Pretty much any set of decent parameters will return the same results. Okay, if you do something really stupid, like 1 second of analysis per move, you will get screwed-up results. But as long as you aren't, this isn't a problem.
A relatively rare occurrence, but yeah, it happens. However, it happens far less often than top GMs disagreeing about the best moves in a position! How do we solve the problem of two different strong GMs each recommending different moves in a position? What's the difference between this and Rybka disagreeing with Houdini? Again, the latter will occur in roughly 10 times fewer cases than the former will.
Again, I agree with you; someone who understands little about chess and engines can abuse this and do something really dumb. A lot of the engine appraisals of various openings are besides the point. However, I believe my suggestion above can fix this problem; "However, care needs to be taken when citing these computer sources. If an engine evaluates some move as +0.15 while what the player chose is +0.10, that's essentially no difference, and can be disregarded. Programs like Houdini and Rybka will even change evaluation of the same move from one move to the next, anyways. However, if Houdini recommend some move that leads to an evaluation of -0.30 and instead the player made a move leading to -1.50, that is a significant blunder and will not change regardless of what engine you use, or which is considered the most powerful."
Again, an exceedingly rare problem. There are presently no Wikipedia pages for games so complicated that two engines will give significantly different assessments of the same move. And keep in mind that in the future, the differences between engines will become finer and finer still.

Look, some of the points you raise are fair, (ie someone with no knowledge of how to apply computer analysis mucks things up), but that is true of literally ANYTHING on Wikipedia. There's always a possibility for abuse. I have outlined a few proposals above that I think will limit it. As for what advantages it confers, they're tremendous! Look, that same legendary world champion Kasparov, whose analysis you cited as so interesting? Something like 80% of his analysis in "My Great Predecessors" was done with a version of Fritz! And by the way, that version of Fritz was rated like 2750. Nowadays, Rybka are and Houdini are rated 3150+. The best player in the world, Magnus Carlsen, trusts these programs more than his OWN assessments! I think these programs can come way closer to "chess truth" than any human player can. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You make some strong points. The problem I have is how would you reference it such that others could check the reference? For example running on different hardware or time limits would give differt results. So you couldn't say Houdini recommends a move because for others it may not thus WP:VERIFY is difficult. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought about the question more in the days since making that comment, and now believe that the alternative is fine, too. It can indeed be difficult to immediately verify computer analysis as legitimate, and since every serious published game analysis nowadays includes Rybka/Houdini evaluations and recommendations, finding sources shouldn't be hard, either. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If the engine analysis is in a published source then I think it is OK, otherwise not, because of wp:v. If it is published then it is fixed, rather than variable, as when someone runs it, depending on the parameters. Secondly, if it is published, then the author has examined the engine analysis and agrees with it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to explain in detail why it would be unwise to use unpublished computer analysis on Wikipedia and I stand by my reasons, but in fact it simply isn't allowed by policy. The WP:RS reliable source guideline requires that the source be published. There are no exceptions for citing the results you obtain by running a computer program. If the results of running a computer chess engine are published by a source that meets WP:V then it's fine, but that has never been in question. There is one curious corner case. Suppose an unpublished computer analysis showed an error in published human or computer analysis that missed something concrete like a mate in two. My view is that since that is directly verifiable by anyone who knows how to play chess that it would be OK to mention the flaw in the analysis in an article as a sort of WP:CALC exception. Be aware that this would be very strongly disputed by many other experienced editors as a violation of the no original research policy. Fortunately I think this particular occurrence is more a theoretical concern than anything that's likely to be a real issue. In many cases you can just avoid citing the flawed source even if it is otherwise considered reliable. We tried to handle a difficult case of several reliable sources that are probably just wrong on Talk:Yakov Estrin. Quale (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I see chess engine analysis in the same way as images, they are evidence from a primary source that is normally best avoided. Contary to the above post there is no policy against its use as the WP:PRIMARY (part of no original research) says it should not be used but on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. WP:VERIFY is difficult, so for that reason I would be against its use. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We are also straying dangerously into the realms of writing a 'manual' once we start publishing analysis. Wikipedia isn't a good practice guide or instructional manual; our purpose is not to seek the truth, just report the facts. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I disagree with SunCreator's opinion that citation of unpublished computer analysis could be justified by WP:PRIMARY. I maintain that it is categorically forbidden by WP:V and WP:RS to use unpublished sources of any kind, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary. From the WP:PRIMARY page that SunCreator links: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). Quale (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Quale, WP:RS is not a policy but a guideline. The quoted bit on WP:PRIMARY fails to logic. In simple terms just by stating green apples are editable that does not mean that red apples are not editable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of WP:PRIMARY indicates that unpublished sources can be used as citations on Wikipedia? That was your justification. You could not be more wrong about this. WP:NOR is policy, not guideline. First sentence: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[1]" The footnote says: "1. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article." The computer analysis you are defending is not published, ergo it is not a reliable source by wikipedia policy. Quale (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to echo that wikipedia is not the place 'to post' unpublished chess engine analysis, for the obvious reasons given above. --Voorlandt (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the correct setup?

I've played quite a lot of chess a while ago, then my memories got kinda rusty. But I thought the queen was supposed to go on its color, like it is said on the chess page, but someone else told me that the queen goes on the left, and the king goes on the right, and some people vice-versa. I was at first surprised to see how lots of people didn't know how to setup, but it made me think if there are any other types of chess that starts with a different setup. Does anyone know about the correct setup for the chess? and if there's any other occasions with different setups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemasta (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The queen is on the left for White, and on the right for Black.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Black square bottom left and queen on its own colour. Works for either colour and ensures both board and pieces are correctly set up. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why I suggested this article. There's a lot of encyclopedic stuff to say about it as I mentioned before.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Paris Defence

There is a new article stating something about a Paris Defence but there is no reference given. Could someone confirm this name really exist, and give a reliable source ? SyG (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of the name and the accompanying text sounds poor. The line itself is given in Hooper & Whyld's Oxford Companion as the 'Semi-Italian', but actually it's just a rare and not very good sideline that certainly doesn't warrant its own article. A passing mention in the Italian/Giuoco Piano article would be more than enough, but even then, the name would need to be established as it conflicts with one that is reliably sourced. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty unusual and not enough sources to warrant it's own article IMO. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not even an actual opening by itself; it can easily transpose into a standard Philidor position after 4. d4. The article is also poorly written; it's 3...d6, not "3.d6". The reason given for why 3...d6 is inferior, besides lacking a reference, is not altogether accurate, either. I think this article should get merged, or better yet, deleted. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion here. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Defense / Defence

Should we aim for consistency in the spelling of openings using the American English defense or the non-American English defence? At the moment articles seem split across the two. Thomasdav (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR basically says leave it alone from article to article. Each article however can be consistant within itself. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The usage is more than a little confusing now and again and I strive to keep the orthography consistent within an article, depending on the prevailing form. With some opening page headings using AmEng and others using BrEng, it's possible to move a number of them, but what's to be gained, really? Hushpuckena (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

diagrams: the arrangement of, and references to

I have recently been reading a couple of chess articles from my phone, and noted that it is difficult in that format to tell what diagram is being referred to: for an extreme case, see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28chess%29 with references to 'the image on the right' or 'the image on the lower left'. Even in desktop mode, it would be nice to have image titles to refer or even hyperlink to, such as (Fig 1: petrock vs sparrow). (It seems worth bringing this up on the project page as there are probably many other articles that have heavy use of diagrams like this). 07:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.140.222 (talk)

Indeed, the "Wikipedia Manual of Style" (WP:MOS) recommends not refering to images as being "at the right" or "to the left", specifically because of the issue you mention:

Avoid referring to images as being on the left or right. Image placement is different for viewers of the mobile version of Wikipedia, and is meaningless to people having pages read to them by assistive software. Instead, use captions to identify images. (WP:MOSIM).

So I would recommend to change the existing practice and start using captions for images. SyG (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IM James Morris

The article James Morris (chess player) has been subjected to repeat vandalism (some silly stuff on there as I write this). But should the article even exist? Is national champion at under-14 level enough to elevate him above all the other IMs out there? In my view, most IMs will have similar achievements behind them, so if this article has enough notability, then we're effectively opening Wikipedia up to all/most IMs. Personally, I don't think we should and I would therefore vote to delete this article given the chance. Any other views? Brittle heaven (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Considering he's a mere 2350 FIDE player at the age of 17, he is not even uncommonly strong for his age level. Winning the Australian (a weak chess country) under-14 championship is not that amazing, either. There are numerous US junior champions (a vastly stronger chess country) who don't have any profiles on here, by contrast. I encourage you to nominate the article for deletion.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I sent it to AfD. SyG (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello Chess-friends!

Do you guys have any place where you put chess books that you have or useful links with good sources? I was researching for develop "Chess in Asia" article and found this link where we can download all issues of Variant Chess Magazine which I think it's a good source for this subject. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Otavio. Sourcing is a difficult subject. When I first started on Wikipedia, it was more about filling the huge void and I rarely used sources, unless the material was controversial in some way. Fellow editors then became less forgiving and for ease, I began to use a variety of online sources; anything that was handy. Several years on, almost all of those weblinks are now dead and I wish I'd taken the trouble to source things more carefully from magazines and books. However, it takes time to build a library! One good source for free download materials is Chessville, specifically this page, which provides for a variety of chess topics, mostly comprising old texts that are copyright time-expired of course. There is little else out there that I could point you to, but others may be able to help. I now have a decent library at home, so if you visit my User page you will see that I have listed all my (non-instructional) chess books, and there is an open offer to editors to ask me to look something up on their behalf, should their own efforts to find a good citation prove frustrating. So please let me know if I can help out. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Brittle heaven. I have a small library too so fell free to contact me if you need to check any citation.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How is the Olympiad scored?

I can't find information on how the Chess Olympiad is scored. Is each match scored individually, win, loss, or draw, or is it the total number of games?

There are four boards per team. In the last one I think there were 11 rounds in a Swiss. The winner had 19 points, according to Chess Olympiad, which doesn't make sense for either of those systems. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Olympiads are always scored by how many individual matches the team wins and draws, not their cumulative score overall. The score of 19 that you mention corresponds to Ukraine winning 8 matches, which count for 2 points each, and drawing 3 matches, which count for 1 point each. 2*8+1*3 = 19. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what about second, third, and fourth places at the 37th Chess Olympiad? The third place team and the fourth place team won more matches and tied more matches than the second place team, but the second place team won more games. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And the same thing for the first two teams in the 35th Chess Olympiad and for #3, 4,5, and 6. And look at the top four at 34th Chess Olympiad. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The rules for point scoring changed from total points to match points quite recently. I don't remember the exact year, but it's recent enough to explain the discrepancies that you are finding. Sasata (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The change must have been in 2008 with the 38th Chess Olympiad. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Are match points now considered more accurate than game points? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as Sasata noted, they changed the scoring rubric in 2008. Before then, they used different multipliers. Regardless, in all cases, it's the MATCH wins and draws that score points (whatever the multiplier is), not the cumulative point scores. That is, there is no difference, besides tie-breaks, in winning a match 2.5-1.5 versus winning it 4-0. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the results for the 34th, 35th, and 37th Oympiads. The places are in order by number of games won and not my matches won. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. For a few of the recent Olympiads, such as the ones you noted above, the result was determined by cumulative team score. My mistake; I thought they had just used a different multiplier, but it turned out be a different rubric altogether.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edward Kotlyanskiy

I was about to propose an AfD for this article, but then saw it had already been done in 2010, and the result was "delete". Anyone know why this page still exists? (I not terribly familiar with the policies of AfD outcomes). Sasata (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably should not have been added back. Direct link to the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Kotlyanskiy. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What's next then? Does it need to be Afd'd again, or can we ask an admin to delete it? Sasata (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it seems that it was never deleted, even though that was the clear consensus of the AfD. I asked about that at the Village Pump, but so far I've gotten no reply: VP. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It is probably better to ask on the AfD talk page, so that is what I did: AfD talk. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 1966

In the World Chess Championship 1966, Petrosian would retain his title if he got 12 points. He got 12 points after 22 games, but the match was played on to the full 24 games. Why? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand it was just two good friends fulfilling their contracted 24 games. It didn't happen very often in those days (e.g. Botvinnik used to develop a disliking for his opponents, to help prepare himself mentally and so matters were usually concluded very abruptly), but from what I remember, Petrosian and Spassky were great pals. Petrosian of course saved all of his vitriol for Korchnoi. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A similar situation happened in the Kasparov-Short match, the match continued one more game after Kasparov had scored the twelve points he needed to retain the title, in that case it was because a drawn match of 12-12 would result in the prize money being split evenly. I wonder if the reason is similar in the 1966 match, even though the purse was very small those years compared to what it is now. Note that Spassky won the 23rd game, and would have drawn the match with a win in the 24th and last game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems very plausible. I'm sure the evenly split prize money would have been worth playing for, even if small by today's standards. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Vera Menchik

Ok. Image at Vera Menchik article is really beautiful but since we have a free one at commons here, shouldn't we delete the first one?OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the intricities of the fair use policy or copyright law, but I think I agree with you. The fair use claim is no longer valid when a free image to replace is available. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The various admins interested in image copyright periodically come around and challenge/delete all of these unjustified non-Commons images anyway. In the meantime, I'm not sure keeping it up there is doing any particular harm - the image is freely available on the net and therefore of no commercial value, even if the photographer were still alive. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC

There's an RFC at Talk:Three-dimensional chess that I'd like third-party editors to comment on.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have joined that discussion. I agree that the article and especially the behavior on the talk page need looking at from some uninvolved editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The need is pretty big.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Extension:EmbedChessboard

Have you ever used this extension? OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We haven't yet, but it would be helpful. It'll have to undergo extensive review and testing before it can be used on the world's largest wiki, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm the author of the EmbedChessboard extension (and the underlying pgn4web core javascript chesboard); feel free to contact me if you need any help configuring, reviewing and testing my extension. Here you can find a demo.Casaschi (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Mark S. Dutton notable enough? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from a quick Google search, probably not. I see nothing that's not possibly a self-published source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. He's a prolific organizer/director here in Canada, but not notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Sasata (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sent to AfD.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Chess notation

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Chess notation (version of 00:23, 22 May 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Michael De La Maza notable? There seems to be a lack of secondary sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is no. Being an expert-strength player means nothing (otherwise, I should have a Wikipedia entry, too!), and guys that promote "new, breakthrough ways to improve at chess" are a dime a dozen. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Alerts

27 May 2012 – Talk:Branko Damljanovic and 3 other Serbian chess players, proposed to be moved per WP:Naming conventions (Serbian). Also if there is anyone who can explain how to add an Article Alert section like you have here at Chess to another project would be welcomed. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone did that for us but I don't remember who, nor do I know how to do it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

name change

Resolved

Queen's Indian Defense has been moved to Queen's Indian (E12). Is that the way we want to name articles? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope not, it seems unnecessary to me. The title would be incorrect anyways, as the QID ranges from E12–E19. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say definitely not. Chess articles would then take on the character of a technical manual for the expert or serious student of the game. I think this is how they are described at Chessgames.com. If, in the spirit of an encyclopedia, we want to keep chess articles easily accessed by people of all levels, then it's important we stick to simple descriptions that might typically be arrived at via a wiki-link, a reader's modest knowledge of chess openings, or perhaps a Google session. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It's incorrect to name the article E12 as this article covers the entire breadth of the Queen's Indian. And there's no way there should be ECO codes in article names anyway. --SubSeven (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Then let's change it back and try to keep it from happening again. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we should revert. SyG (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It was moved back. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Julian Simpole

His page states that he's a chess author. Period. In my opinion, this should go on the scrap heap unless some sort of notability can be verified, and I've seen precious little along those lines. He's also been an organiser in England, but I don't see this as enough to justify inclusion, really. Thoughts? Hushpuckena (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That article is practically nothing. I say delete it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I really struggle with these ones. Writer, teacher, organiser, publisher and Vice President of the Commonwealth Chess Association. He is one half of Hardinge-Simpole who publish all the reprints of classic chess books by Fine, Morphy, Reshevsky etc. The only reason his article is so small is that an editor or editors got tough with it being unsourced (although this is not uncommon). I suppose the question in my mind is whether his achievements would be appreciably less than say Burt Hochberg. Hard to say. I'd probably vote keep, but obviously the tougher editors here have left the article in a useless state, so really I'm saying resurrect all the old deleted material, which was correct, if unsourced. There have been previous attempts to remove this article - not sure what occurred then. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Tags on Bishops Opening

Tags for tone and "how to" have been added to Bishop's Opening. These need to be addressed. See the article's talk page for the editor's concerns. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would just remove the tag. The corresponding posting on the talkpage consists entirely of questions, and no specific objections to the content. Adding tags for vague reasons (a malady that has infested Wikipedia in all subject areas) is useless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. That being said, sentences like "White should remain alert for any chance to transpose into a favorable variation of the King's Gambit, but with careful play Black can avoid this danger" sounds typically "how-to", don't they ? SyG (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a little bit. But not as bad as "do this, then this". And first person and second person are avoided. which makes it less like "how to". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I softened the how-to in that sentence a bit. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do people think the tags can be removed? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks improved to the point where there's no reason for those tags to stay aboard, though I see a couple of tweaks; I'll do the honours. Hushpuckena (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Immortal Game. moves 18-20

At Immortal Game there are some discrepancies for moves 18-20 (see talk). What are the correct moves? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say most likely 18.Bd6 Bxg1 19.e5 Qxa1+ 20.Ke2 Black resigns, as given in La Régence, July 1851 (Hooper & Whyld).Brittle heaven (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Persin origin of chess

Hello Chess friend!

Please take a look at Chess and History of chess discussion's page. It's a new discussion about a very old topic about where chess came from. Regards,OTAVIO1981 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Afd needs expert eyes

Folks, you may be interested in this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Turnbull (2nd nomination). – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Notable?

Is Bernard Parham notable? I don't believe he is; while he's attained the rank of master in USCF play, he only held it for two years (1992-94) and is presently at 2000, with a FIDE rating of ~1850. The fact that he created a new system of chess notation hardly adds to his notability and the opening named after him is, at best, of questionable value, its adoption by Hikaru Nakamura in two games aside. There are plenty of players who have accomplished more and haven't anything here; to AfD this should go. Maybe others feel differently, though. Hushpuckena (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he is notable enough. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He has an opening named for him. That just might concur some notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Close call perhaps, but I'd say delete too. Born in 1946, all of his contributions to chess happened some time ago. Hence it would be difficult for us to confer notability when Golombek, Hooper & Whyld, Sunnucks, Divinsky, Brace et al have, without exception, passed him over Brittle heaven (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't "invent" any opening. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5?! is a silly move that has been around for a long time and has been called a bunch of various names throughout the years. The "Matrix System" also sounds iffy as something new, and the idea that it's the only notation that maintains information when rotated 180 degrees is nonsense considering standard algebraic notation does the same thing! On a related note guys, ChessDrum is a REALLY bad source. There has been so much factually inaccurate nonsense and falsehoods I have had to delete from other articles which referenced it as a source. A good example was the claim that KK Karanja only won the Laura Aspis prize once for highest-rated USCF player under the age of 13 even though he qualified for it twice because of "racism". An intriguing claim, but I also found that Vinay Bhat, Jordy Mont-Reynaud, and other famous juniors had qualified for the award multiple times, but also gotten it only once. Why is that? Well, because the Laura Aspis has a rule that it can only be given to a certain player once. Anyways, Bernard Parham is nowhere near notable enough. I nominate it for deletion.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

English Opening

This page is a jumble which is mostly all but impossible to follow and, even if it were intended for a beginner, would probably do more harm than good-that poor player wouldn't have the slightest idea where to begin! As noted on the talk page, I'd just as soon scrap almost all content after the lead and give it a massive rewrite, but don't necessarily have the sources any more to substantiate any massive changes beyond my own (admittedly) dated theoretical knowledge. Hushpuckena (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have many sources on that opening, sorry ! SyG (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It's a messy article structure wise. Maybe gut much of it and encourage a rebuild of the article? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Punctuation (chess) moved

Per WP:BOLD (aka "It's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission"), I have moved the punctuation (chess) article to chess annotation symbols. The original title with "punctuation" was a bit awkward (Who was that silly author who initiated the article at that title anyway?), since the question and exclamation marks are not really meant as punctuation in the context of chess annotations. Also, since the article was initiated, several other symbols, such as the position evaluation symbols, have been added to the article. I think the new title covers the article's content in a better way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

When an article is renamed, the change needs to be made at index of chess articles. I made the change there. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I forgot to do the exact same thing when I moved the Mihai Suba article... Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good call on the move Sjakkalle. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Chess notability

I think it would be helpful to create a notability for chess somewhere that was agreed on. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We need that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we do. It's been discussed a few times, and I've been in the minority in not seeing the need. What is the problem that must be solved? WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG seem fine. Quale (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It comes up a lot in AfD discussions of minor players. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And are these discussions unsatisfactory in some way? The hypothetical problems I can imagine that such a guideline might help address are

Too many non-notable chess articles created lead to a excessive number of AFDs.
The AFD discussions founder or become bitter or protacted due to lack of a guideline to help determine notability.
The AFD discussions lead to undesirable results as either articles on notable chess subjects are deleted or articles on non-notable chess subjects are kept.

I try to keep an eye on chess-related AFDs, and personally I have not witnessed any of these things. The number of chess AFDs seems rather modest to me, the discussions are generally courteous and productive, and the results are almost always ones that I consider correct. Which of these issues do you see, or is there some other problem that you think such a guideline would eliminate? My general opinion is that wikipedia already has far too many guidelines and I think less is more except in cases where the bureaucracy meets a definite need. It's possible that you would like to see more chess bios deleted than I would and thus have a concern about #3. In the past I didn't see the value in articles on minor players, but I have changed my mind about that. Now I subscribe to WP:Build the web, and I think that brief, factual articles on minor players help give a more complete picture of chess competition in their eras. If there are reliable sources, there's a good chance they meet WP:GNG. Quale (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussions in the last week or so about ESports have moved in the direction that WP:ATHLETE applies only to physical activities. So next time WP:ATHLETE is used in an AFD on a chess related item don't expect it to stick. This is why I feel that some sort of chess notability (WP:NCHESS) is written. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have looked more closely at the current state of WP:ATHLETE. I thought the last time I paid close attention to it it was worded a bit more broadly, but currently the only part relevant to chess is "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." This does not include national champions as these contests are generally not international, so even though WP:GNG always applies it is possible that some chess bios that I consider notable enough for inclusion could be deleted. (It is also quite possible that WP:ATHLETE was never as broad as I thought it was—it could be my faulty memory or sloppy reading of the page.) I haven't seen notable chess pages deleted yet, but perhaps it would be a mistake to wait until after some notable chess biographies are lost before starting to write a chess notability guideline. Quale (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the past few years, the members of the chess project have generally agreed about what we consider a notable chess player. Can we sumarize that and put it on the project's main page? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me when will start because I'd like to participate. Regards.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll get the ball rolling. This is based on past discussions on this talk page and in many AfD discussions.

For players of recent times:

Grandmasters are notable. This includes women grandmasters, correspondence grandmasters, etc.
International masters are generally not notable unless they are also renowned in some other way, usually as a coach/teacher, composer, theoretician, writer, arbiter, etc. Examples: Mark Dvoretsky and Jeremy Silman.
Lower players may be notable if they are national champions, played in an Olympiad, or are notable as a writer or teacher. Examples: Bruce Pandolfini and Graham Burgess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all GM are notable. For old players, I sugest an entry in a printed encyclopaedia like Oxfor Companion to Chess, although it's not a big problem in a AfD.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are so many grandmasters today that I don't think they all are notable and need a WP page either. However, I don't think anyone has ever proposed deleting an existing article about a GM. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I like Bubba73's proposal; I agree with OTAVIO1981 that there are entirely too many GMs today, some who were never even top 1000 among active players in the world. However, as a basic rule of thumb, Bubba73's notability criteria works.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I did suggest trying to build a set of criteria for the general case for games. A GM would probably count as WP:ONETHING the danger is in assuming that because he / she is accomplished in chess it makes them notable because chess is important. I think unless they have won more than one major tournament or have a newspaper article or book about them not merely mentioning them then it is not clear that they should have a page.Tetron76 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Debate about the bishop

There are some edits about the history of the Bishop (chess) that are disputed. Please examine them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember reading some years ago that originally the " Bishop" was actually a ship, ships being a primary weapon of the day. That was the reason that the "Bishop" moved on a diagonal line of attack ( ships tacking in or out of the wind is the way they move ). The church couldn't stand a popular game without a role for its self, so the ship was tossed and replaced with a "Bishop". Any input on this ?P.K.Lester. (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never read such thing before. The most common old name for bishop was Elephant. Ship is the name for the rook at least in Russia. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article about a possible mechanism behind someone hearing / recalling that "Bishop" is related to "ship". See False etymology.

The word "Bishop" long predates its use as a name for a chess piece. It is a modernized form of the Old English "Bisceop" (rhymes with "slope", sometimes spelled "biscop"), as in:

"Se bisceop is gecweden episcopus and is ofersceáwigend on Englisc, ðæt he ofersceáwige symle his underþeóddan" (source: http://bosworth.ff.cuni.cz/004423 ).

Also see:

Old English

Bishop (chess)#History

History of chess

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bishop

http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/bishop.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The article does raise at least one question that since the earliest chess set the Lewis chessmen have a bishop prior to 1200 it seems questionable that the bishop was introduced 1200. The problem is with most game history is that it is speculation until you reach a written record. Clearly the elephant is an older piece but the movement described is for the modern piece. The other thing to note is that the Chinese symbol on a Xiangqi set is a cross.Tetron76 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Buchholz system

I tried to clear up some confusion at Buchholz system (see its talk page). But I could only find two references for the method and they disagree. Golombek says that it adds the scores of the opponents. Hooper and Whyld say "a player's score multiplied by the sum of the opponent's scores". But multiplying by the player's score doesn't make sense as far as tie-breaking, but it could as an alternate scoring method. But which of these two methods is the correct Buchholz score? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

When he says multiplied by opponents score: I assume he means if you beat a player and score 1 point that 1 is multiplied by the score of the opponent beaten so if they were 7/10 you'd add 7. Then if there is a draw it would be 1/2 x 7 = 3.5. None of the methods work well because of the first round opponent. I know all the possibilities but not the chess terminology the tie break document I saw shows an error for now.Tetron76 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Gottfried

Jonathan Gottfried is not a GM. He is not even rated player. (http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=238333) What a hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsHudson (talk • contribs)

Right, I will nominate it for speedy delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Done

Glossary of chess

Did this change to the Glossary make all the current direct wlinks of terms into the glossary ineffective now? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that: they still work! e.g. file (chess). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! (Wasn't sure was compatible, my first test was invalid.) Somehow {{term}} code recognizes #. Cool. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason that each term had a subsection was so that links can be made to them. Apparently none of us knew of the better method. The recent changes really clean the article up and it seems to load faster too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Blunder (chess)

In Blunder (chess), examples were taken out and no reason was given. The same editor did it about a year ago. See if you think the examples should be restored. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Revertable as unexplained blankings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Unexplained removal of content. ('Tis a mystery. The user went in and selectively removed two examples, as if with a scalpel. Wonder what the basis was!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to restore them unless their removal can be justified. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of examples other than those two, so I haven't restored them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Svetozar Gligorić, 2 February 1923 – 14 August 2012

Svetozar Gligorić, R.I.P.: http://www.chessdom.com/legendary-grandmaster-svetozar-gligoric-passed-away/. 04:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

He managed to draw against Fischer in a book by Lev Alburt.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What a great, nice man. Fischer trusted him as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only did Gligoric draw Fischer, but he beat him on two separate occasions as well. Anyways, he was a true great of the game. On a related note, this leaves only Mark Taimanov and Yuri Averbakh as the only two remaining players from the legendary 1953 Zurich Candidates' Tournament. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)