Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

Dare I ask why chess.com doesn't have an article, just a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it?

For some reason chess.com and wikipedia don't seem to get along, but it's an undeniable fact that chess.com is a hugely popular site with several million subscribers, and is one of the top 2000 sites on the whole internet in the Alexa rankings. That in itself surely qualifies it as notable? Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a member of chess.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It used to have one, but I think it was deleted because of a lack of independent sources. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Chess.com (AfD discussion). One of the loudest voices in trying to get the page deleted was a longterm abusive sockpuppeteer, but other editors had concerns about the page as well. I think a well-written article with sources independent of the subject could demonstrate notability. Quale (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
IMO Chess.com should not redirect to List of Internet chess servers, that is confusing, and has led to quite a bit of confusion already. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the USCF site can be used as a source? Chess.com has grown considerably these last few years and has recently taken over the respected chessvibes site. (Not all chessvibes fans are happy about this). http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12379/319/ MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Lack of reliable sources is the reason the site does not have an article here. Second of all, that site's claim to "8 million members" is a total lie and everyone that plays chess online knows it. Another thing is that that site has nothing to set itself apart from any other chess server online. Well, maybe one thing is that the site gets an extraordinary amount of negative reaction, such as this blog: by IM David Pruess. But the main thing is the lack of reliable independent sources. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Another reason that Chess.com gets such negative reaction is that it is so obviously a for-profit website founded and run by people that don't even play chess. The only thing that the chess.com management cares about is how much money they can make. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The founders play at club level... but anyway I don't think this is particularly relevant. Clearly ICC and chessgames.com also have a profit motive, otherwise they wouldn't still exist. Chess.com is in fact the biggest chess site on the internet and it's absurd that it doesn't have a wikipedia page. And I'm not even a subscriber. I've started working on an article on my sandbox, I'll submit it when it's ready. It should go without saying that wiki will have no tolerance for single-purpose accounts bringing their drama from chess.com to chess.com's wiki page. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Well as long as you have Reliable third party sources for your article everything should be fine. Would you mind telling us what your sources are so far? Unless you get some reliable sources there will be no Chess.com wiki page. And it would be good if you dropped the pompous attitude. Fishface gurl (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on it... and a 10 day old account which has already managed to stir up a lot of drama and been logged twice on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents probably isn't in the best position to decide what should or should not be included in wiki. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not deciding. Reliable sources decide. Do you have any? Fishface gurl (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know of any non trivial sources. I don't think this site is important but Wikipedia would be a little better if it covered the site. To my understanding chess.com got a lot of casual users from Facebook rather then committed chess players. Chess players tend to use chessclub.com (ICC), chesscube.com, lichess.org, playchess.com, freechess.org among others. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Your first sentence is gibberish. What are you trying to say? Do you speak English? More importantly why do you think that "Wikipedia would be a little better if it covered the site" when there are no reliable sources that discuss the site? Should we do away with notability requirements now? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
And uh, no, mere alleged size does not equal notability, and it is not an "undeniable fact" that chess.com has 8 million subscribers, etc. You'd think if the site was as popular as it claims to be *cough* that it would actually be covered in some reliable sources. The lack of mention in any reliable media speaks volumes as to how non-notable that site is. Another wierd thing is that Max Browne claims that he's never been a member of chess.com, yet he defends the owners there saying they are "club level" players. How would he know of that? Does he know these people personally? If he was not a member or had a personal connection to Chess.com how would he know anything about its owners being club level players? It's certainly not written in any reliable sources. What I am seeing here is that a handful of editors are lobbying that the notability requirements be set aside just so Chess.com can sneak an article into Wikipedia. Why is that? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia be a little better if it covered the site? It's something chess people would have heard of and have an expectation of finding on Wikipedia, few could say the same of Chessence or Julius Brach. I don't see 'editors lobbying' but if they did it here on this talk page, it would be near meaningless anyway. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Aren't Chessence and Julius Brach covered in reliable sources? That is why they have articles and "Chess.com" doesn't. It is not what "chess people would have heard of" that decides what is covered her and what is not. The issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS militates against the inclusion of a "Chess.com" article. Policy is policy, irrespective of what one pov-pushing chess geek may argue for here. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Chessence told me it doesn't like being lumped together with Julius Brach. It received nearly twice the number of view hits last month as Brach received: [1] vs. [2]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. In any discussion about recreation and notability, only the opinions of established editors should be taken into account. Far too many new, single purpose accounts and probable sockpuppets here. Edit: Just to make it doubly clear, I will not engage with abusive single-purpose accounts or IP's. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main points you should be considering is that you still haven't responded to any of the questions posed to you in your "quest" to force a chess.com article where it does not belong, and in contravention of all wikipedia policies. You choose to focus on the speaker and not the content. However, this Pompidou does have some important questions. Remember also, be nicer to the newbies. On top of all this, I repeat my first question to you: Do you have any reliable sources for this article? Yes or no. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
You know what matters in any discussion about recreation and notability? Substantial coverage in reliable sources. Where is it? In addition, Max Browne's language saying it is "absurd" that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article, his wild personal attacks and allegations of sockpuppetry, and his willingness to flaunt the general notability guidelines just to get his pet article inserted all show that he is not coming from a Neutral point of view. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fishface, Pompidou is probably not a newbie, more likely yet another User:Wiki brah sock. Quale (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hm. If Fishface is a puppet, then it goes with Pompidou. Anyway. The WCF credits chess.com not with 8 million, but with 6 million, members: [3]. --Askedonty (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well. Erratum - in fact the two are two very different WCFs. --Askedonty (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. @MaxBrowne:: while I'm sure that opinion re: "established editors" is based on many experiences with sketchy sockpuppeters, WP:AGF is a pretty crucial rule. Wait until you can suspect an account of sockpuppetry before saying "ignore all newbies".

2. (more on topic): Why is there such hostility on this topic? It's true that you can't go by Chess.com's self-published statistics, and most people are going to base "notability" on what they themselves use or have heard of, but I'd encourage any of you beating the WP:N drum to visit ALL OF THE OTHER CHESS SERVER WP PAGES.

So even the flimsy links people have dug up re: chess.com surpass what there is precedent for. It seems that anybody who would AfD Chess.com would be hypocritical not to also nominate at least Chess Live, ChessWorld, FIDE Online Arena, and Playchess. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Other stuff exists - arguably, these should all get deleted too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The Mammoth book of Chess by Burgess discusses PlayChess, Internet Chess Club, and the ICCF website. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
TechCrunch looks like a good source for establishing chess.com's notability and I can probably find more. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, why didn't you just take the two seconds to search TechCrunch for Chess.com-related news before you posted that? If you did, you would have seen there is nothing substantial about Chess.com on TechCrunch. Furthermore, is TechCrunch even a reliable source in the first place? Max Browne's insistence on creating an article on Chess.com even with no non-trivial sources and in the face of so many people telling him sourcing does not exist smacks of either willful ignorance or a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue.
Also, concerning those other articles on chess sites, it is an invalid "other stuff exists" argument and all you are accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles now.
Speaking of deletion, Max Browne probably should take into consideration that "Chess.com" has been deleted from Wikipedia at least four, maybe five times already. Fishface gurl (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
TechCrunch is not a reliable source for at least two reasons: 1. TechCrunch does not have any editorial selectivity. It writes about every new internet startup. Does that make every internet startup notable? No. TechCrunch's "story" on Chess.com from 2007 is little more than a promotional blurb. More importantly, 2. TechCrunch was later involved in a huge editorial scandal which revealed that its "stories" were little more than a blog with severe conflicts of interest as well as no editorial oversight. see this NY Times story. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists != invalid. This is the WikiProject responsible for coming up with inclusion and notability criteria for chess-related articles (within general policy constraints). That means that if the "other stuff" is an entire category of chess articles which have been deemed acceptable, selectively dogmatic enforcement of the rules against one new entrant to that category, ignoring the rest, is concerning and might betray WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If "all I'm accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles," that's ok--not ideal, but at least some standards could be established. ...But to say that chess.com doesn't belong because it doesn't measure up? ...That TechCrunch is not a reliable source? ...That chess.com doesn't belong because it's for-profit? TechCrunch isn't a great objective source, I agree, but it has been established as a reliable source on Wikipedia for general purposes... and the kind of article you're talking about comprises several of the already scant citations on my little list above (in other words, by those standards, even fewer make the cut). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can you say that this group comes up with inclusion and notability criteria? The inclusion and notability criteria is dictated by the entire site. If you find the standards too strict perhaps you can start some sort of wiki of your own. Nobody also said that the sourcing for the articles you pointed out was acceptable. Those articles should be AFD'd according to the sources you found. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an appropriate essay User:Master_Thief_Garrett/Don't_add_sewage_to_the_already_polluted_pond. Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Pompidou Centre: - That does have some applicability. In general I have a problem with its logic being rooted in deletionist/immediatist (I can't believe I'm using those terms) assumptions/values (e.g. the possible connotative shift "if the homeless family already has day-old baked goods, don't give them any more"). But that's more of an aside. Regardless, the time and effort being exerted to prevent this one source of pollution is such that for every gallon of (chemicals?) the Chess.com article would add to the "polluted pond," people could have removed 10 gallons of chemicals already polluting the pond. That's not to say it--or any of them--should or shouldn't exist, but it seems to imply some other, more ideological motivations in play. Or perhaps it's just about making an example? --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Fishface gurl: Indeed. What I was referring to, though perhaps I overstated their role, are WP:Advice pages. WikiProjects often have second-order criteria (or "advice") on how to apply site policy to subject-specific articles. In some cases it has been these that led to subject-specific guidelines. Ultimately, however, I'm not arguing for nuanced documentation like "advice on internet chess server notability"; nor am I even saying one way or the other than Chess.com or any of those others should or shouldn't exist. It's just concerning that it seems people are putting up a particularly strong fight against this one site for POV reasons, holding it to strict interpretation of notability while turning a willfully blind eye to its equivalents, none of which would hold up to the same scrutiny. Something tells me if FICS were put up at AfD and I pointed to the standards for sourcing demanded of Chess.com via this and other discussion threads it wouldn't be long before someone directed me again to some essay like "There's other stuff" to dismiss comparison. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I totally get what you are saying. I am sorry if I came off as shrill. If the Chess.com has reliable sources that substantially cover the subject then I don't see why it shouldn't have an article. My concern is that New York Times story on TechCrunch, which casts severe doubts on TechCrunch's objectivity. Did you read it? In my personal opinion, not that it matters overall, I think there are three "notable" chess servers. ICC has been written about since it was the first, FICS has been covered in the press due to a rather nasty split from ICC, and ChessCube has also been covered in the business press since it was unique in having received large amounts of venture capital from traditional venture capital sources; that resulted in some coverage in the traditional business press, I think. I do think it will be only a matter of time before Chess.com gets covered in the mainstream press or the business press, however. Then it certainly will be "notable" hands down. I believe also that coverage or even a mention in a traditional chess encyclopedia such as Hooper & Wilde or Sunnucks can assert notability. Just my thoughts, all the best. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Note the following SPI. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Fishface gurl (talk · contribs), along with several other accounts, has been indefinitely blocked as a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to lie low for now and let the drama die down, because honestly I don't even like chess.com much (ICC man myself). Anyone who wants to create such an article is welcome to use the material from my sandbox. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Pompidou Centre (talk · contribs) is on the list too. The article in your sandbox looks in better shape than it did during the last deletion discussion, if I recall, and at least one of those socks were vocal critics in that discussion. Maybe without them it wouldn't have such a hard time? I'm still ambivalent, but your sandbox version certainly looks passable (withuot having clicked the refs links). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's notable that the [https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Chess.com main sources] regarding this site's non-notability are themselves non-notable, certainly not reliable, and primarily written by Wiki brah. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Alvaro Dias Huizar

Is Alvaro Dias Huizar, a FIDE master, notable enough for an article? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in the article demonstrates wikipedia notability. Venezuelan national rank is 87, and of course Venezuela isn't an international chess powerhouse. Quale (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship frequency

At World Chess Championship there is some back-and-forth editing about whether it is every one year or every two years. It links to this, which says every two years, but is it every one year now? It needs to have the correct current information. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That source is from 2007 and is largely irrelevant now (virtually the entire plan it lays out was eventually changed, e.g. Topalov didn't get to play Anand until 2010). One could infer from the fact the World Cups are held every two years that FIDE wants to hold the WCh every two years. However, everyone also knows that in practice, FIDE's schedule depends on the availability of sponsors rather than any sort of organized planning on its part. Unless a better source (i.e. more recent, and ideally from FIDE) can be found to support either the two-year or one-year frequency (the FIDE calendar doesn't mention any schedule for the WCh after 2014), it's probably better not to say anything at all on the subject. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. Quale (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Category question

I've just come across Category:Chess double grandmasters. Am I the only one who finds this category bizarre? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need it. Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
When it was created I suggested that a list would be more appropriate than a category if we feel we really want to record this information at all. Short sections in the lists of correspondence and composition gm's might be warranted since I think there might be mild interest. Quale (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It is something that is occasionally mentioned in the chess world and I would say a noteworthy achievement. It may be more of a European, rather than American topic of interest, as we have high profile characters like Nunn and Mestel with double titles here in the UK for example. We must however take some care with our chess title descriptions generally, not just in category introductions, but also in article space. As those who visit chessgames.com may know, there is sometimes reference to the grandmaster title that the Russian Federation awards its own players. This is not a FIDE title, but Natalia Pogonina for one, insists it is more difficult to achieve and therefore can be viewed as more prestigious than the FIDE version. Our title articles are quite poor at present - lots of duplication and even FIDE titles that are missing. I will add a note to the Wikiproject 'things that need ...' item regarding titles, so that Russian Federation titles are considered by anyone who rewrites/revamps the existing range of articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's difficult to ascertain who holds any Russian (or Soviet) titles and what they did to get them. Couldn't find them on the russiachess.org website. Here's some interesting stuff from Mark Weeks. Being a blog it's not a reliable source in its own right of course, but he seems to know what he's talking about and can probably help with sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
A little more on this; a few weeks ago I copied from the German and Russian wikis to create the page List of Honoured Masters of Sport of the USSR in chess. I found another couple of interesting pages on the Russian wiki giving the history of the Master title as it relates to chess: Мастер спорта СССР по шахматам and Маэстро. For all of these articles the main source given is the 1990 Encylopedic Dictionary of Chess, edited by Anatoly Karpov and published by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a source most of us obviously wouldn't have access to even if we did know Russian; however it appears to be one of the definitive reference works on Soviet chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good addition to the encyclopedia. I've reached out to a chess editor who has excellent knowledge of and sources for Soviet and Russian chess; maybe he will be able to help. For those who are interested, the chess project topped the 4000 article mark last month. I'm not sure precisely which article put us over. Quale (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's depends how we are measuring. A good way to evaluate this is using page_id at CatScan 2.0. By this way, the 4000th article created was Leonid Yurtaev but this list can change if we add/delete an older article. Well, congratulations anyway!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the useful tip. According to the article assessment statistics on WP:CHESS, on 21 July the project had 3975 articles tagged {{WikiProject Chess}}, but Leonid Yurtaev was created in March. I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy, but it isn't hugely important. Quale (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A long time ago I read here an user that created a list of chess articles that exists in german but not in english in order to create than. Well, now we have this tool that is quite simple and useful to do that. If someone wants some help translating from portuguese, please let me know. Regards! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review

My Venezuelan comrades and I have contested your unwise, unsound, and imperialist deletion of Grand Master Dias Huizar here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_12. You shall not get away with this insult to the Bolivarian spirit! Churrasco Eater (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra Nicolau

I today created the page for Käty van der Mije-Nicolau as she recently passed away. She is listed as Alexandra Nicolau on this Wikiprojects' articles to create section, so she might be crossed off the list. Unfortunately I don't know much about chess so one of this Wikiprojects members might wish to check the article for accuraccy. Cheers. Crispulop (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I made some small corrections. Käty van der Mije-Nicolau needs to be added to index of chess articles, but I don't know which letter for the last name. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There's probably a policy on this somewhere, but I *think* particles in Dutch and German names are usually ignored in alphabetical lists. Our index is generally (van der Wiel, van Wely, van der Sterren, all names with "von") but not entirely consistent in this respect (de Groot, van der Nat and van Kampen). Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done under M. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements to the article. Dutch name directories ignore prefixes such as: van / van der/ de, etc. So she is correctly listed under M.
I furthermore saw that User:Garybekker created a whole list of chess related articles and the most recent ones have not yet been tagged with WikiProject Chess. Those might be interesting for your Wikiproject. Crispulop (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Gary's done some good work writing about Aus and NZ players, but his articles are often challenged on Notability grounds. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

On our other favourite bug-a-boos

p.s. This issue has been a bug-a-boo. (p.s. There are many others, too, but let's not talk about them in this context, because the thread will get too long and it will give everyone a headache. For example, when do we capitalize 'Grandmaster', and when don't we? And is it 'Nimzo–Indian' or 'Nimzo-Indian' [and why?]? And does everyone agree we should use one notation in articles [abbreviated algebraic], and that "Black's push b7–b5" is consistent w/ that, but "b7-b5" is longhand notation and therefore introducing a second & different notation into the same article which is not the best way? And how about a final deal on '0-0-0' (vs) 'O-O-O'? And ditto for +5 −3 =2 (vs) +5 =2 −3. Ditto ½ (vs) .5 And how about picking one or two from 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v' instead of using all of 'em? And ... [OK, I agree, quite enough!].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that project-wide conventions should be established for such situations. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I prefer ½ instead of .5 because (1) the result is either a whole point or has a half point. (You can't score 5.3.) And (2) few people speak that way, e.g. people rarely say "he scored seven point five points"; more likely they say "he scored seven and a half points". In the body of the article, I prefer "versus" (a period looks like the end of a sentence). In a diagram I prefer "vs.". I don't like a hyphen between the names of the two competitors because it can be confused with a hyphenated name - see an edit to wrong bishop within the last few days. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Re ½ (vs) .5, I agree obviously and there was a decent discussion on options here, I just think that convention oughta be added to the other edit conventions spelled out on the WP:CHESS project page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Re 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v', I agree "vs." is best, but IMO use of "versus" ought to be reserved for text intended for reading, e.g. "The top board would again feature man versus machine." In section names (TOCs) I don't like "versus" spelled out, that suggests reading text for meaning, when only a game identification is the purpose. (So either "–" or "vs." when referencing a game. Ditto for article names, where I'd prefer "vs.". I'm not sure about dispensing with "–", however, since so many sources use that, e.g. ECOs, Hooper/Whyld, etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
See the confusion at wrong bishop that was corrected 2 or 3 days ago. The source (BCE) says "Guretzky-Cornitz", and it looks just like "Euwe-Fine". Someone (it could have been me) thought that it was Guretzky vs. Cornitz when it is actually a hyphenated name. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes it was your blooper [4], but, I'm not sure that seldom-occurring confusion s/b the basis for editing convention (maybe it should!?). Reading is king: what the Project wants readers to see/read (no matter how confusing for editors to get there). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to think of the readers rather than the editors. I think it is clearer to read "versus" or "vs." than the hyphen, since the hyphen sometimes indicates a hyphenated name. And some readers won't know that the hyphen usually means "versus". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso brought up seven issues to discuss. My opinion is that we should first try to follow WP:MOS as much as possible, and if it doesn't offer us any guidance, examine common practice in the chess literature. I haven't read any of the previous discussion I assume we've had on these issues (although I've noticed the monster in the closet, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation) and if my thoughts conflict with the general consensus please point them out. But these are my views anyway on the less complex issues (the algebraic notation discussion is tricky and I don't want to start it):
If there won't be discussion and consensus to put into WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white', then the kind of passion around '0-0-0 (vs) O-O-O', as shown by an earlier thread, along with commensurate reverts & re-reverts at articles based on personal preference, will just have a basis to continue indefinitely. Also there s/b one chess notation, not two, in an article. "Black will reroute his knight Nc6–b8–d7" clearly invokes MOS:NDASH where the endash translates to "to". (That example is no different in kind to the earlier example "Black will push his pawn b7–b5.") I don't see any active discussion yet, so there cannot be any new WP:CHESS conventions set without consensus, and limited participation means no consensus. Last, the view that these convention issues don't matter as long as each article is internally consistent, I think is faulty for at least three reasons (probably more) if you think about it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess titles

I believe chess titles should be treated in exactly the way we treat other titles such as "Doctor". Capitalize them only when used as an honorific and use lower case in all other situations: "The book was reviewed by International Master John Watson", but "The book was reviewed by the American international master John Watson", or "He beat Grandmasters Adianto and Paragua" but "He beat two grandmasters". And just as one does not usually write out "Miss" or "Mister", titles should be abbreviated when used as a honorific (IM, GMs in the previous examples). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of self-constructions that make solutions look all-too-easy to apply (same as the 'White/white' issue), we should look at how these are actually used in articles. In articles there are countless uses of Grandmaster/grandmaster preceeded by a country identification, like this: "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen." And there are countless uses in chess BLPs beginning like this: "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster." Back in February I asked talented WP writer-editor Khazar2 for his input, it's in his Talk Archive 7, so I'll copy/paste that dialogue here:

When should "Grandmaster" be cap'd, and when shouldn't it? ("A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian Grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich", vs. "A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich"; "I want to introduce you folks to Grandmaster Nakamura" vs. "... to grandmaster Nakamura"; "After success in qualifying matches x, y, z, so_and_so was awarded the FIDE title of Grandmaster"; "There were several grandmasters attending the Mainz Open", etc. (It seems to me s/ be cap'd when referring specifically to the title itself, or used as title appended before a name, but otherwise, lower-case. Is that right?!) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a quick Google check suggests that the New York Times and BBC don't capitalize it in any instance: [5][6][7] I would follow their lead until someone points out a specific Wikipedia MOS guideline that demands otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
It would appear that the usage I suggested is consistent with the usage you suggested to Khazar2, and that usage is also consistent with all but one of the search results Khazar2 found, so I wouldn't be so bold as to call it my own invention. I doubt in this case we'll find uniform consistency within the literature either (am I right in surmising from the entry on Michael Adams that the Oxford Companion always capitalizes titles without exception?), which is why I'm suggesting a method that is exactly analogous to other conventions surrounding honorifics and capitalization in English. If we've got military ranks listed on the table at the end of MOS:ABBR, I think it would be logical to add chess titles there as well.
Let me turn the question around: why should this Wikiproject adopt a standard on chess titles that's different from the convention applied to any other honorific in English? Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess WP:JOBTITLE also applies here. If I read it correctly it suggests that we would write "Grandmaster Carlsen" but "Magnus Carlsen is a Norwegian grandmaster", which seems right to me. I don't think grandmaster should always be capitalized, but never capitalizing it might lead to irregularities especially when compared to lesser titles. Some such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master look odd when not capitalized (FIDE master and candidate master), and International Master, Woman International Master, and Woman Grandmaster are potentially ambiguous and confusing when not in caps. If we wrote "Irina Krush is a woman grandmaster", would our readers interpret that as Krush is a WGM or would they read it as saying that GM Krush is a woman? Probably it would be best to avoid those potentially ambiguous constructions and use a different wording. Quale (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:JOBTITLE expresses exactly what I mean to say regarding capitalization. Thanks for pointing it out. I agree that the potentially ambiguous constructions you mentioned are to be avoided. Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Although being a grandmaster is not really an occupation, I think WP:JOBTITLE is the closest analogy we have, so I agree with the others above me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the same considerations apply to "World Champion" or "Russian Champion", where we might write "World Champion Anand" and "Anand is world champion", etc. Quale (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So what about these (very common article) examples then?:

From the Bobby Fischer article (I'm wondering if absense/presence of definite article "the" is impacting):

  1. "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen."
  2. "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board this youth, [...].'"
  3. "[...] Fischer was set to play against Soviet grandmaster and concert pianist Mark Taimanov in the quarter-finals."
  4. "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman calls Fischer's victory 'the story of a lonely hero [...].'"
  5. "[...] Fischer stayed for extended periods in the San Francisco-area home of a friend, the Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas."
  6. "He resided in the same compound as the Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, [...]."
  7. "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević called Fischer, 'A man without frontiers. [...]'"
  8. "The U.S. grandmaster Robert Byrne labeled the phenomenon 'Fischer-fear'."
The "the" makes all the difference, as you suspected: capitalize 1, 3, 4 and 7. Replace "grandmaster" with "king" or "president" and ask yourself if you would capitalize the latter two words in the same position. I should comment though that there is no reason to refer to someone's nationality or chess title if neither has any direct relevance to the text: you don't expect an article on Stephen Hawking's career, for example, to refer to all the people around him as "Dr. Roger Penrose", "Mr. Robert Graves", "the English professor Fred Hoyle", "his Indian student Dr. Jayant Narlikar", etc. That Taimanov was a concert pianist is particularly irrelevant to his quarterfinal match against Fischer. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue of good writing whether the national qualifiers like "Danish", or "concertmaster" should or shouldn't be appended is really a side issue and discussion of same only serves to take us off topic (i.e. when to cap or not cap Grandmaster/grandmaster). (BTW as long as you have brought up the poor writing of including those qualifiers, I now have to say that I as editor did not add any of those qualifiers in any of the examples listed. Neither did I add "concertmaster". But again, talking about it takes us off point.) I agree with all of your prescriptions above (that 1, 3, 4, and 7 s/b cap; 2, 5, 6, and 8 s/b lower-case). However, I have two Qs on my mind about these examples ... Q1) Does everyone see and agree then, that as far as cap vs. lower-case goes, we essentially have a critical difference between the following two sentences? "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'", and, "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'"? Q2) We've agreed what is correct is "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But let's modify the sentence a bit. How? By using "GM" instead. So we have: "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" Is there anything wrong with that sentence? I presume there isn't. And is "GM" in that sentence "honorific". I presume it is. So if "GM" is honorific in that sentence, how could substitution of the word GM represents, suddenly make the substituted word not honorific (and therefore demand lower-case)?! (And I guess this raises a question too, you mentioned earlier if I remember, you felt "Grandmaster" and "grandmaster" s/ not be spelled out in articles and "GM" s/b used instead. Have you dropped that position? [Because if we are not to use "Grandmaster" or "grandmaster" in articles, then the whole discussion as to when to cap and when to use lower-case is of course irrelevant.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought I realized abbreviations like "GM" would likely be unfamiliar to the general reader so I'm no longer convinced it's a good idea. I brought up the needlessness of mentioning titles because I agree that it would look strange if a page was full of capitalized titles like "Grandmaster": my point is that this should not be an issue because the titles themselves should be used sparingly. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's great. But what about my Q1 & Q2? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about this one, it isn't "honorific" use, but makes direct reference to the title as a title:

  1. "[...] he finished tied for third with Borislav Ivkov, half a point behind tournament winners Ludek Pachman and Miguel Najdorf; this confirmed his status as a grandmaster."

And in many article introductions this pattern:

  1. "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster."

And these (are indefinite article "a" and definite article "the" impacting?):

  1. "Garry Kimovich Kasparov is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer [...]."
  2. "Robert James "Bobby" Fischer was an American chess grandmaster and the eleventh World Chess Champion."

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No capitalization in the last four examples. In the last two examples "world chess champion" also should not be capitalized. Sorry, that's not right: in the third case "a former world chess champion" is correct because "world chess champion" is a common noun (it refers to world chess champions in general) but in the last case "World Chess Champion" is correct because it is a proper noun (it refers only to Fischer). Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
This is confusing. Why does the Kasparov example have to be interpreted as a common noun? WP:JOBTITLE says: When the correct formal title is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France [...]). So, presumably this is okay: "Louis XVI was a former King of France [...]". And if that is okay, then why isn't this okay: "Garry Kasparov is [...] a former World Chess Champion"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't correct to write "Louis XVI was a former King of France" to express the meaning "Louis XVI was a former French king". I'll answer why this is so on your talk page tomorrow, but right now I need sleep. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I need sleep too. I can see you're probably right. (Poor Kasparov ... He'll have "former world chess champion" in his article lead, while Fischer will have "eleventh World Chess Champion" in his. I agree this seems correct though.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's right. It seems to me (correct me if I'm not right) you are using a simple guideline: "Cap 'Grandmaster' and 'World Champion' only if they are used honorifically, and honorific use occurs only when immediately in front of a person's name, as that person's title." But what about cases where the title is being referred to as a title, e.g., "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of Grandmaster." (The other alternative would be: "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of grandmaster.") Ditto "World Champion". (Are you with me?) We need a more comprehensive guide than simply "honorific, appended before a name". (It is easy enough to construct simple cases as Quale did above, and think they explain a convention comprehensively, when they don't. [And when they don't, it leads to confused and inconsistent application in articles, which caused this thread sub-part to be opened originally. So if we leave the discussion to apparently simple conclusions that aren't comprehensive, we think we solved the problem, we didn't, and this whole discussion is wasted, we end up with continued inconsistent uses in articles without resolution, and we end up right back here again in future. That is why I like to rely on real-article examples, or if I make up examples, to illustrate how an over-simplified rule can be deceptive, by being inadequate in solving the original problems that caused a discussion to occur in the first place.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
In which of the previous four cases do you think capitalization of "grandmaster" and "world chess champion" should occur? Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Please, can we have logical order to this discussion, if we will have one? Do you or don't you grant that "Grandmaster" might be rightly capitalized when referring to the title as a title, in the example I've given? (Your questions are out of context, and I cannot answer them, without knowing your answers to my good-faith Qs above. This is not a contest of wits, or tricks or traps. If there's something illogical about my line of reasoning then just point it out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Since you've dropped idea of using "GM" in place of the spelled out words, I presume using "GM" would also be an alternative editors could use, since it can simply be wiki-linked to the same article "Grandmaster" is wiki-linked to. So therefore it is not wrong to introduce question how GM compares with it substituted value "Grandmaster" or "grandmaster", and when substituted, where is the consistency re honorific or not. (I suppose by asking these questions I'm a trouble-maker who deserves to be blocked!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I was only asking because I wanted to understand exactly what it was that you were confused over. I think my answers are consistent with WP:JOBTITLES, which everyone seems satisfied with as the guideline to use in this case. I don't want to clutter up this page with a two-person conversation, so I'll answer your previous questions in depth on your talk page. Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of "Grandmaster" being referred to as a title (there are many more), from article Raymond Keene:

  • "In 1976 he became the second Englishman, following Tony Miles, to be awarded the Grandmaster title."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another from article Tony Miles:

  • "He learned the game of chess early in life and made good progress nationally, taking the titles of British under-14 Champion and under-21 Champion in 1968[1] and 1971, respectively."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) From Grandmaster (chess) (first two lead sentences):

Hyphens and dashes in opening names

WP:NDASH is quite clear on when to use en dashes. In cases where the two words are independent elements and the meaning of the punctuation is "and", an en dash is indicated: Smith–Morra Gambit, Caro–Kann Defence, Richter–Veresov Attack (which means we need to move Richter-Veresov Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation). When this is not the case, a hyphen is used: Semi-Slav Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence (short for Nimzowitsch's Indian Defence—"Nimzowitsch's" modifies "Indian" so the two are not independent), Neo-Grünfeld. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that "Nimzo-Indian" is short for "Nimzowitsch's Indian"? Why couldn't that name equally be a combination of two terms "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence"? I really think you show a pattern, here and elsewhere, to make your own substitution choices, and then draw conclusions from them. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I distinctly recall having said somewhere that "these are my views", and I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. No, I can't find a source that explicitly says that, but I have evidence that that is what the phrase was intended to mean when it was first invented. But let me point out one other thing first:
  1. With words that are not player names, the term "Indian Defence" is never used to form a compound in the way you describe. The term "Caro–Kann Defence" means "Caro and Kann's Defence", or equivalently, "the defence attributed to Caro and Kann". But the term "Old Indian Defence" does not mean "the defence attributed to Old and Indian", which makes no sense; instead, the meaning here is "the old variation of the Indian Defence". "Old" and "Indian" are not independent elements: the latter is part of "Indian Defence", which the former modifies. This is even more obvious in the case of "King's Indian Defence" and "Queen's Indian Defence".
  2. Edward Winter shows in item 3712 that the idea of blending the words Nimzowitsch and Indian first occurred in German: "Nimzoindisch" first appeared in print in 1931, while the first use of "Nimzo-Indian" dates to 1935 according to the OED. Back then, the Indian ("Indisch") was thought of as a single opening (and not a group of openings, as it is now), and when 3...Bb4 was first mentioned in print it was called ‘La “Variante de Nimzowitch”’ in French, not "La Défense de Nimzowitsch". Kmoch's quote in German in the last sentence of Winter's article also refers to it as a variation. This implies that when the German "Nimzoindisch" and the English "Nimzo-Indian" were coined, it was unlikely to have been meant as an amalgamation of "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence", as you suggested (which would be strange, since the former is the totally unrelated 1.e4 Nc6), but as a contraction of "Nimzowitsch's variation of the Indian Defence". That the unhyphenated blend "Nimzoindian" occasionally occurs in the older English literature (e.g. item 7677) is further evidence that the English and German terms are linguistically related. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking "Nimzowitch" might refer to 1.e4 Nc6, rather some line of his in the QP opening. Anyway you've convinced me, thx for all that research. (I also found this at MOS:NDASH but don't know if it applies: Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry.) Anyway I need to access a tool to do mass changes to undo all the damage I've done mistenly thinking Nimzo–Indian was correct. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

W/L/D records

I couldn't find any convention on Wikipedia for this, but I note that Template:Infobox boxer lists draws after wins and losses, and most articles on boxers seem to follow this convention in text and in headings. I haven't seen examples of them using the (+5 –2 =3) notation though. Checking the literature, Kasparov in My Great Predecessors (Everyman) seems to consistently list losses before draws (although he's the only person I've seen who doesn't use spaces—I take it we prefer to). It's surprisingly difficult to find examples of this notation in other books—I found one instance in Sanakoev's World Champion at the Third Attempt (Gambit 1999, p. 59) where it's losses before draws and one in Palliser's The Modern Benoni Revealed (Batsford 2005, p. 26) where it's draws before losses. That's three different conventions in three books by different publishers—not very helpful. But it does seem that listing losses before draws is a bit more common, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I suggest we stick to that. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I agree. The proposal is to actually add it to WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white' so there is a basis for keeping articles consistent over different editors' personal preferences. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that's what we're aiming for. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't really like putting draws after losses. A draw is a result between a win and a loss, so the logical place for draws should be the middle, at least if using an abbreviated format instead of writing it out with words. Looking a bit wider than just chess, I think sports league tables in Europe tend to use a win-draw-loss format, while those in America use win-loss-draw. (Compare for example tables for football in England with those in in America). Not a very big issue though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
But this is not a "gray scale chart". A reader reading for meaning or pertinent information is interested in wins & losses, not draws. (Draws don't determine how a player did in a match. In addition there are matches where drawns don't count for anything, only wins, so in those cases drawns can be considered to not even exist and so have zero relevance. So on that basis putting the irrelevant draw count between the relevant win and relevant loss figures ends up unhelpful and even distracting and obscuring the pertinent information for a reader wanting quickly to ascertain the match result. The more important informations should appear first. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want to emphasize the solidity of players such as Schlechter, Petrosian and Leko, the draw count may well be more interesting than the number of losses. It's a matter of personal opinion (you like using this argument, so I'll use it too!) which you think is more important. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
After all the talk about draws being the death of chess in the last decades, you argue that draw counts might be more interesting to some readers? Based on their interest in certain players' styles? OK that accounts for like 1% or less of readers, so we should set a convention based on that argument? And it isn't my opinion, it's Bobby Fischer's. (His advocacy for matches where drawns don't count. To make chess matches interesting again, and to give spectators what they are paying for.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, the fact that it is very difficult to find instances of this notation even within specialist chess literature (you can try yourself as I did) suggests that the average reader is unlikely to understand what it means. I agree with the notion that Wikipedia pages should be made as accessible to the average reader as possible, and while writing about chess moves without using algebraic notation is virtually impossible, I think it's a bad idea to place an additional burden on readers by expecting them to know that "+" not only means "check" but also "win" in this case; that "−" means "loss"; and that "=" means "draw". Is it really so difficult to just write out the words? As for the order, whether written out or not, in view of Sjakkalle's point I'm going to go back on my previous opinion and suggest that either is acceptable as long as consistency is maintained within an article. Cobblet (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The +=- notation is used in the Oxford Companion, which is a specialist encyclopedia on chess. I am probably guilty of using the shorthand notation myself (due to laziness), but I agree with you that writing out the result in words is probably best for a general purpose encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with the logic that using two different WLD orders is fine as long as consistent within an article. (Based on that logic, then what objection would there be allowing descriptive notation in addition to algebraic notation as long as the notation choice is consistent within an article? On what basis do you contend consistent across all articles is desirable for notation, but not for WLD records?) I also disagree with the the view (+ − =) or (+ = −) are too specialized for chess articles and should be replaced with words. We don't replace # with word "mate" or "checkmate". And we don't spell out "draw" to replace ½–½, or spell out "White wins" to replace 1–0. Is there really a solid distinction that permits accepting symbols for applications in one set of circumstance, but not another, other than personal preference? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Because to allow the use of descriptive notation would only place an additional burden on both readers without a chess background and readers with a chess background who were born after the last book in descriptive notation was published. (I'd be surprised if one such book has been published in the last thirty years.) It is absolutely reasonable to agree on one system on notation for Wikipedia. If you feel equally strongly about standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses when written out in words as you do about standardizing algebraic notation, I will point out that the former is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. YMMV.
That there is a difference in the prevalence between the +/-/= notation and symbols such as # or 1-0 is most clearly illustrated in Algebraic notation (chess), where the last two symbols are explained but the former notation is not. And I challenge you to find one example of a discussion of algebraic notation where the +/-/= notation is explained. (Is it even explained at all in the Oxford Companion? It isn't in the entry on "standard notation".) I'll also point out that symbols such as # and ½ are prescribed in the FIDE Handbook, while the +/-/= notation is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I can tell. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
[...] standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses [...] is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. No. It is simply in the interest of seeing consistency across chess articles. (Look in The Oxford Companion -- Hooper/Whyld use one order in all their encyclopedia entries that express WLD. If they used two orders scattered randomly through their book, that would have been unprofessional and messy, so they didn't do that. Ditto Encyclopedia Britannica if they are worth their salt. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Your personal opinion (Fischer was talking about match formats, not notation) is no more relevant to this discussion than the personal opinions of Sjakkalle and myself. I don't care very much about the issue of ordering draws and losses, and neither Sjakkalle nor anyone else seem to, so if you want a convention, we can have one. The real issue is whether we should be using the +/-/= notation at all: Sjakkalle and I have both expressed reservations about it. How do you feel about it now? Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify, I care more about that there is consistency re order (WLD OR WDL), just like The Oxford Companion has consistency re order and not a messy mix of orders throughout their encyclopedia, than whether the order is WLD or WDL. But an editor gave an argument "a draw is between a win and a loss so therefore it is logical that it should be in the middle" and I didn't want that to go unchallenged since I think wins & losses are more relevant to what readers are probably seeking and therefore we should give them that rather than making it more difficult to pick out. But I am fine with WDL order since Hooper/Whyld picked that order for their book. As far as spelling out the words instead of (+ − =), I prefer the compactness of the symbols, as the match record is just to give data, and introducing words suggests it's readable-for-meaning text akin to specifying "versus" were only "vs." is necessary in indentifying a game. As food for thought, the symbol definitions could be put in an article akin to Chess punctuation; or that article could be renamed and expanded; or the symbol definitions could be put in the Glossary of chess; or a template could be written something like {{WLD|5|2|3}} to produce (+5 −2 =3). (I kinda like that idea actually, for e.g. applying it on the first occurrence of WLD in an article to give indication how to interpret the symbols and so repeat underlining doesn't make a blight for the article. I also agree w/ Quale [below] that the symbols are so intuitive that Hooper/Whyld probably figured they didn't need explanation, so again a single use of the proposed WLD template seems to me to be the right balance. [I wouldn't know about it supporting visually impaired readers, however.]) Again these are just ideas, I'm willing to accept words instead of symbols if there is Proj consensus for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Cobblet is right that the +W−L=D notation is not explained very often anywhere, although that might also suggest that it is thought to be pretty easy to understand even without explanation. I think writing 5 wins, 4 loses and 7 draws, and the like repeatedly in an article might be pretty tedious to read. It might just be me, but I can read +5 −4 =7 much more quickly than the expanded text. I am sympathetic to the concern that the notation isn't understandable to the general reader, so if the project decides that we should write it out I am fine with that. As long as wins come first, the WLD or WDL order is consistent within an article and a minus sign is used instead of a hyphen, I don't care whether the order is consistent across the entire project. If we decide we should standardize on the order, I will respect it. Quale (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The template was at least a cute idea, but it makes me think: articles on players of other individual sports like tennis and boxing get nicely formatted tables at the end summarizing their tournament and match records. Why not for chess? At a stroke we'd eliminate the need for such a notation and the articles would look a lot cleaner as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notating draws

Definitely 8½ and not 8.5, since this is the convention used in every book I checked, and it also applies to game results: ½–½, not 0.5–0.5. (And use en dashes for game and match results, per NDASH.) Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and per this discussion at Talk:Boris Spassky, where also I brought up MoS accessability issue with ½. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely ½-½ over 0.5-0.5 for notating draws. No real preference when it comes to scores such as 8½ or 8.5. Perhaps the fraction notation is a trifle clearer, but I see decimals used e.g. on results tables, including the MSA area of the USCF website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably easier for them not to have to use special symbols when inputting large amounts of data, but Wikipedia doesn't appear to have this problem. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've thought that it's sometimes easier to get the numbers to align in a pleasing column in a crosstable if decimals are used, although that generally requires using .0 on some of the results. There is some ugliness in that as well, so probably it isn't a big concern and using the fractional notation would be as good or better. But I agree that 8.5 is never good in running text (it falsely suggests that 8.6 is a possible score), and 0.5−0.5 is an abomination. Quale (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Versus v. vs v vs.

Per MOS:ABBR, the only correct abbreviation of versus is vs., except in legal contexts, where v. is used. But in game scores I strongly prefer using an en dash with no spaces rather than "vs." or a hyphen, per WP:NDASH: G. Kasparov–A. Karpov. Guretzky-Cornitz is fairly easy to distinguish from Guretzky–Cornitz, at least to my eyes. Virtually all print sources use either a hyphen or a dash, although the spacing differs from publisher to publisher. The reader who doesn't understand that a dash represents a game between two people is not likely to understand algebraic notation in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always found talking in general about conventions such as these unhelpful and misleading, since the devil is always in the details. For e.g., if you prefer endash on game scores, does that extend to section titles and article names? (Should Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 be instead Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1? Or Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, 1996, Game 1?) For me as already mentioned, I think "versus" in TOCs and article names is less good than "vs." or "–", since "versus" works best when reading for meaning whereas "vs." or "–" serve simply to identify a game. (So for e.g. the nine games identified in the TOC [i.e. section names] in article Draw by agreement are better off IMO as "vs." or "–" for easier visual access to that TOC info.) An article name like Queen and pawn versus queen endgame isn't identifying a game, but still might benefit from "vs." instead of "versus" to make the title less "narrative" and more normal recognition by players: Queen and pawn vs. queen endgame. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
What are conventions if they are not general? You can rest assured that I always try to say exactly what I mean, and if I don't say something, it's usually because I don't mean to say it. The only case where I support going against the convention I proposed (and this applies to everything I say) is when common parlance overwhelmingly favours the alternative, such as in Kasparov versus the World, which was promoted by MSN and the media as such. So yes, I prefer Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1, unless popular usage for Game 1 itself (I agree that Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov is what the match is usually called) dictates otherwise. There are cases in other fields where the en dash is used in titles: Lincoln–Douglas debates and Roman–Syrian War are two examples I got from the MoS. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
What are conventions if they are not general? You misunderstand me. (Yes, the end result of an editing convention development discussion is or s/b a generally stated principle/rule/instruction, but that is the product of said discussion [its output] and I've seldom seen it helpful starting development discussions by immediately jumping to proposed solutions. Just because we say "hey, we are lacking an editing convention for xx" doesn't itself enumerate all the problems or examples we'd want a good convention to address. So jumping ahead of that to a "solution" can just cause a backwards-moving discussion if/when an inherent weakness is found in the proposed solution in the form of inherent exceptions it didn't take into account. [And the result then is a likely break-down of the discussion and nothing gets accomplished. [It's more fun and instantly gratifying to be the "hero" who instantly solves a problem. But when the solution faulters or has cracks, there's immediate loss of interest, the discussion stops, nothing gets done, and months later the whole scario just repeats with the same non-result. [For an example close to home, look at your fast proposal re algebriac notation box and what happened to it. When queried how you'd implement it, you then saw a reason to keep the current box in some applications. That was an example of an instant solution ending up causing backward-direction discussion. Then we saw the proposal fizzle and the discussion lose interest.] If you want to see another vivid illustration of what I mean, go see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Use of gender-neutral terms. (Some editors were all satisfied with generalities, "Hey, what's the problem? Just make it gener-neutral like the Mos says. Easy as pie." Well, ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I am being sincere when I say that these are my own opinions, and I am prepared to discuss and welcome discussion on anything I've said. I apologize that the issue with the algebraic notation box has stalled because I haven't bothered asking at the village pump yet. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether "versus" should be abbreviated to "vs." in article titles, but I support having a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles. Incidentally, my suggestion of having en dashes denote individual games provides a neat way of disambiguating between matches and games involving the same players. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
There already is "a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles", and it's the same one MOS applies to all other (non-legal) article titles, "X vs. Y". (WP:AT derives its style advice from MOS.) WP:Nobody cares, Cobblet, what personal-quirk way you "prefer" to abbreviate versus. Wikipedia isn't about you and how you want to do things to make chess seem special and different, or so you don't have to adapt your writing to Wikipedia a little since it's a completely different environment than a chess webboard. Nobody cares that your eyes and your fonts on your monitor using your browser (in this week's version) make "Guretzky-Cornitz" and "Guretzky–Cornitz" distinguishable; this is not true of everyone, and for people with vision issues your "fairly easy" is likely not good enough (note also, and this is crucial, that most screen readers for the blind do not distinguish these characters. If you don't like Wikipedia's way of doing "versus" situations in titles, then take that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The legal field got a variance from "vs.", maybe you'll convince the community that one is needed here, too. (Good luck; I was a regular sports writer here, and I can tell you flat out that virtually no one is going to recognize "X–Y" as synonymous with "X vs. Y"; it must be a chess publication thing, which brings us to nobody cares that chess publications do a few things stylistically different; that's irrelevant here, because this is the world's most general-purpose encyclopedia for the largest conceivable audience). The last thing this notoriously standoffish and WP:OWNish project needs is another point on which it will be broadly seen as pushing an anti-MOS "rebellion" that violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK for harshing on you, but I'm on my way back out to re-re-edit this for a sweeter tone, I think you really know better than what you're proposing, and I have already spent too much time trying to slap some sense into an entire project overrun with tendentious, battlegrounding, hostile WP:SOAPBOXers and WP:ADVOCACY-pushers who have no regard for anything but their own precious interests, for me to care any more. I am intentionally being a bit of a rude ass on this because some of you people just are not getting it, not matter how many times the rest of the community tells you are doing Wikipedia wrong, and I'm at a loss for how to get the message across other than yelling it in your faces. Bye. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I think we need a WP:OCD and WP:PATRONIZE if they don't exist already. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've witnessed several of his "contributions" to similar discussions at WT:MOS, and you probably won't be surprised to hear me say that his participation always lowered the level of debate and made consensus harder to reach. Fortunately I don't think that will be an issue here. His recent dyspeptic (and I must say very impressive) rants aside, I don't think he's likely to lay siege to this page and attempt to drown out all opposing viewpoints with his shouting the way he often has in the past. Quale (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility to the average reader does matter to me. No doubt that using "vs." instead of a dash would be clearer for them. Am I correct in characterizing User:Bubba73's preference as "versus" in the body of an article, and "vs." in all other situations: titles, headings, captions, perhaps even notes? And does anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like Kramer–Kramer and have used it in several chess articles, but this and previous discussions on this point has convinced me that we shouldn't use the dash this way except perhaps under specific circumstances in tables. "Versus" is too profligate for captions and possibly the the other uses you mention, which leaves us with "vs." I think it might be OK to standardize on vs. in nearly all contexts, using versus in running text. It should be OK to use vs. in running text as well, but it looks too much like the end of a sentence to me. Quale (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
@Quale, but what about article titles that identify games?
@Cobblet, I think you've mis-summarized Bubba's preferences. (I think he likes "versus" in both article titles, and section names that identify games.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I did. I'll let him clarify. Cobblet (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
My preference is "versus" in the text and "vs." in diagram captions. I don't have much of an option in section titles (or article titles) - I think I've used both. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this says that "vs." is OK, depending on the context. It also says that the abbreviation is more casual, and if you are unsure - write it out. To me, an encyclopedia tends to be formal. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And it says that "v." or "v" should only be used in legal context. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And "Laws of chess" doesn't count as legal? Well, OK. </joke>. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

0-0-0 vs. O-O-O

We s/ really get resolution on this. The view "it's not important" is fundamentally correct, but ignores the fact there is also irrational intense passion behind the issue. The view "just so consistent within an article" ignores the fact there occurs thereby unending edit reversions (warring) based on personal taste. If I'm not mistaken most articles are 0-0-0 already, and the related documenation explaining FIDE vs. PGN is also in place. Personally I think O-O-O looks old-fashioned and s/b reserved for games 1899 and before for "antique-look" and as convenient tip-off the game is a couple centuries old, and O-O-O takes up an inordinate amount of horizontal space, but that is my own irrelevant personal preference. Cobblet feels Oh, that should obviously be 0-0-0. So I'm suggesting we do this and add it to the limited other WT:CHESS conventions to get it over with and end the otherwise endless source of friction (and inconsistency). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. The decision isn't "forever" obviously. (If the desire is to reverse at some point, how difficult is a mass change e.g., all "0-0-0"s → "O-O-O"s?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I see little reason to deviate from what is the official albebraic notation described in the FIDE rules. Article C.13 clearly lists 0-0 over O-O. The chess books that I have, and that includes books from Gambit, Everyman, Mongoose, Random House, and Batsford, all use 0-0 over O-O. The O-O notation is mainly used in pgn files, but these are not truly algebraic notation despite the obvious and almost complete overlap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Two things are clear: 1) You haven't read the FIDE rules. 2) You didn't read my original post where I pointed out the flaws in the FIDE rules. No point in discussing the issue until those two things change. DrZukhar (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's nice. Why not apologise for labelling Ihardlythinkso's edit vandalism? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
DrZukhar, your argument The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. was deficient in that that edition of that book employs English Descriptive Notation (an old-style notation and a good application for "O", IMO), but the modern algebraic reprint uses "0". If a project consensus is drawn re "O" vs. "0", your preference doesn't "win". (Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
(Re DrZukhar). I am an active arbiter of chess tournaments, so of course I have read the FIDE rules (this is required reading). Secondly, I read your original post as well and "flaws in the FIDE rules" makes no sense. The FIDE rules are the rules, and those are the ones that we follow regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. DrZukhar wrote above: The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. That's true for my 1969 Simon & Schuster (original) edition, but that edition also uses the old-fashioned descriptive (e.g. 1.P-K4) notation. (Which is a good choice. So both old-fashioned typographies are together. Did DrZukhar fail to mention that for some reason!? I do not know what decent [non-bastardized] reprinted editions use, does anyone have one and can tell?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The new official edition uses "0". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. (I couldn't view any pages on Amazon.com.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

exd5 vs. e×d5

Oh. Could we also make this official!? (Why? Because Tony1 made a total nuisance of himself at Talk:Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard#Notation convention w/ his incessant baiting "But what about the sources?" mantra based on his tiny booklist and MOS obsession and admittedly not being a player, hello. [And thanks again to Double sharp for reverting the SOB after Tony & Guy Macon were harassing me for a potential block. This shit shows just how nasty the Pedia can be; oh sorry, am I not AGF'ing?! If anyone challenges what I say I can fucking make a convincing case of it, OK?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Again, little reason to deviate from FIDE's document on the laws of chess. In the appendix article C.9 states: "When a piece makes a capture, an x is inserted between...", so it is an "x" and not a cross/multiplication sign that is the standard algebraic notation. This is also the convention used in almost all chess literature. Some older literature, in particular German books, used the ":" notation (1.e4 d5 2.ed5: Qd5:), but it appears to be obsolete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank u. (I actually found "×" in several books in my library like Tony found, and it's pretty classy in those old books I must admit [fine-lined, delicate], but isn't standard by any means & didn't warrant a "fight".) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Be very careful or you will be blocked. Tony (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Is that all you have to contribute, Tony? Here's what you wrote at the Morphy versus the Duke:

I suspect that chess notation has never undergone scrutiny with respect to the sources. We should be pleased to debate this thoroughly. It's at MoS central talk page. Tony (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet, short of re-posting your mini book list, you didn't participate in the discussion at MoS, however you did repeat to my attention several times including after said discussion had ended the following question, where you apparently didn't feel one question mark was enough and made them triplicate:

Hardly, what about the sources??? Tony (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here again is a chance for you to contribute something meaningful to a discussion of the topic. Perhaps Guy Macon can come in here to help you out by referring to me again as a "mole" that needs "whacking", as he did on your User talk!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The colon is not quite dead yet, just on its way out, I think. Nowadays I think you will more frequently see it used just like "x", so. 1.e4 d5 2.e:d5 Q:d5; I typically use this outside Wikipedia. But x is assuredly the standard. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Not only is "x" used by most specialist publications, it is also the character used by mainstream sources such as newspaper columns—I've been making a list of them over at User:Cobblet/Chess publications. Cobblet (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation symbols (+−, ±, ∞, etc.)

Thanks to everyone who's been participating in the discussion so far. We've talked about the best way of formatting Informant-style evaluation symbols before, but I don't know if we've ever discussed the issue of whether to use them in the first place. I for one feel we shouldn't, because it's safe to say that no reader who isn't familiar with chess literature will have any idea what they mean, and because I don't see any advantage in using them. We're not bound by space constraints, and there's at least one publisher (Everyman Chess) that also scrupulously avoids using these symbols in its books. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous notation issues

There are also a number of fairly trivial issues that were originally brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation but did not generate much controversy. I don't expect that to change, but for the sake of completeness, I'll mention them here:

  1. For pawn promotion, the common notation d8=Q is recommended as being more intuitive to the non-specialist reader than the alternatives d8Q, d8(Q) and d8/Q (the first is FIDE's recommendation, the other two are rarer).
  2. For en passant captures, the notation gxh6 e.p. (which is also FIDE's recommendation) is recommended.
  3. The symbol "++" for double checks is discouraged as being unnecessary, and also because FIDE regards it as a valid alternative to # for checkmate.
  4. Even if a game ends in checkmate, a result (1–0 or 0–1) should be given at the end of the game score.
  5. Expressions such as "g-file", "f5-square" or "e-pawn" should always be hyphenated.

Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article needing cleanup

Before the match between Carlsen and Anand began, on 8 November 2013, a new World champion emerged: Vishal Sareen! ;-) The article needs substantial cleanup. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Wong & Gordon Crown

I welcome any feedback and improvements on these two articles. I think Crown qualifies for notability because of his strong promise, upset win over Kotov and premature death. I think Wong is notable in the context of Jamaican chess, since it was (ans still is) very rare for Jamaica to produce such a talented player at such a young age. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on writing the Crown article; it has long been needed. I can certainly add at least two more references from books that are authoritative, although I think that the online sources you already have (Chess magazine and Winter) are actually good enough to establish notability. I will either add direct if it seems straightforward, or contact you on your talk page if I am in danger of undoing any of your work. Unfortunately I don't have any detailed knowledge of Sheldon Wong, so will be unable to help you on that one. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
For some reason some editors have a problem with my description of "highly promising". I don't think it's hyperbole, or weasel words, or original research; just a paraphrase of the sources I've read. Nor do I see a problem with describing the death of an 18 year old as "premature". MaxBrowne (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Then identify it as the opinion of those sources. On Wikipedia, "Nomen Nescio called John Doe a talented pianist" should never become "John Doe was a talented pianist". As for "premature", see WP:WTA. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see "premature" in the "words to avoid" article. Plenty of wiki articles refer to someone dying prematurely... and how is the death of an 18 year old not premature? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. The page has multiple ellipses and repeatedly uses the expression "words such as".
  2. See WP:OSE.
  3. It's subjective, and you end up in a slippery slope: if 18 is premature, what about 19? What about 20? What about 25? What about 40? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
18 isn't premature?? And the description "promising" is certainly supported by the source I supplied. Wikipedians can be so anal sometimes. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
ok I'm kind of irritated about this so I'm just going to restore those "promising" and "premature" descriptions. If you think they somehow violate wikipedia policy please take them to dispute resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
None of what you wrote addressed my rebuttals. You have made no reference to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. "He was talented" is not neutral. "He was widely considered talented" is. Your use of the word "anal" is rude and gratuitous. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add them to index of chess articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well hopefully the line I was (and still am) going to take should attend to those concerns, without losing sight of Crown's potential or early demise. I'll get on with it shortly. Meanwhile, you have reminded me of another long overdue article - Ian Wells (chess player). Wells was another teenager who died prematurely and uncannily, he was also noted for beating Kotov during his short life. If you don't know of him, see Chessgames.com for a brief bio and there is a longer reminiscence by Larry Evans, on something called SunSentinel I think, via Google. He is on my long term 'to do' list, but if anyone wants to pick up the mantle, feel free. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

European Chess Champions

Recently I discovered Category:European Chess Champions. For some reason it does not distinguish between undisputed and women's titleholders, like the categories Category:World chess champions and Category:Women's World Chess Champions do. (Incidentally, why do they have contradictory use of capital letters?) I think Category:Women's European Chess Champions (or perhaps Category:European Women's Chess Champions) should be created. Comments? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the category should be removed instead. This is a category that should be a list, and in fact we already have it as all the champions can be found in one place at European Individual Chess Championship. I do not consider this category to be a defining characteristic in the way that the world championships are. Also I agree that the capitalization of the world championship categories should be straightened out, but I'm not sure which is the best way. I think I would agree to whatever Cobblet recommends, as he has given very good explanations of similar issues such as White vs. white. Quale (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_27&oldid=1089738568"