Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Questioning notability
Does Ayah Moaataz meet notability for chess players? If not, the article need to be AfD-ed. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Born in 1997, won the Egyptian Women's Chess Championship with 8.5/9 back in February, this being reported on the FIDE website. She was in the Women's Olympiad team in Tromso this year. I would retain it. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we don't have a page for the Egyptian Chess Championship. I searched for information about the Egyptian championship several years ago and came up empty. Looking today I also found nothing. It may be that Arabic sources are required, but I'm not equipped to make use of them. Quale (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, she does not meet notability criteria, considering she is rated only 2009 Elo, and 1423rd in the world among active women. (FIDE Master is 2300+ and International Master (IM) is 2400+, neither of which is considered notable enough by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, either) Ditto for the WIM title. (Frankly, even WGM, which is ranked below IM, should be borderline) Since she doesn't have any other achievements, this should be deleted. Since it's been a long time since I regularly contributed and I keep screwing up the protocol, does anyone else want to start the AfD? Thanks. :) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oddly I don't see anything in any notability criteria about chess rating or world ranking. The Egyptian women's chess champion is sufficient for notability (if reliable sources can be found, as always). Her page is also linked from Chess at the 2011 Pan Arab Games (she was first board on the bronze medal winning team) and Women's World Chess Championship 2014, and it does not improve the encyclopedia to remove pages to create red links. One of the ways to improve the encyclopedia is to build the web, and building the web requires making the meaningful links work, not destroying them. I think every qualifier for the women's chess championship should have a page, regardless of your opinion of their ability. There will very naturally be few pages on Egyptian chess players here on EnWiki since Egypt is not a world chess power, but currently there are only three (Category:Egyptian chess players), with only one woman. Working to make that number drop to two men and no women is not something I would be proud to do. Quale (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- According to what source is an Egyptian women's chess champion notable enough? From what I'm aware, the usual standard is Grandmaster for men and at least Women's Grandmaster for women (a title considered lower than International Master). We have deleted players ten times more notable, prominent, and stronger in the chess world than this person. Actually, you're quite wrong about Egypt; they're ranked the 48th country in the world and they have four 2500+ rated GMs (at least two of which don't appear on Wikipedia at all). I'm not sure what the last few lines mean; are you suggesting a gender quota be used for the purposes of notability? If you're concerned with Egypt's representation, feel free to start pages about Egypt's grandmasters and their countless International Masters and multi-time overall Egyptian champions. The player in question isn't even close to the top 100 active players in Egypt, by the way. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I won't nominate it myself because I don't like destroying other people's work... but if someone nominates it I won't oppose deletion. Her CV is rather unimpressive. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Quale on this one. For all of my time here, we have consistently looked at a wide spectrum of distinctions when gauging notability. So ideally a GM/WGM, but if not, we would take into account other worthy achievements, like published writer, national champion, successful coach, Olympiad team member etc. There are numerous examples of where this has been done and accordingly, a national champion with the WIM title, playing board one for her country and competing in the World Championship, must surely qualify for an article. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is "national champion" articulated as a meaningful distinction? It should depend on the country, no? (By the way, she got the WIM title BECAUSE she was a national champion. Her rating is way, way too low to qualify otherwise. And a WIM title by itself is nowhere near notable enough) For instance, we don't automatically have articles about the best basketball player in Mongolia, do we? Also, we're missing articles on the overwhelming majority of junior WORLD champions of either gender, several of Egypt's GMs, and countless Egyptian national overall champions, which no one is particularly concerned about. (And actually, I would agree that most of them aren't very important, but still many times moreso than this person) However, a meaningless national champion ranked 1423rd in the world among active women is notable?! (And even that's overly generous, considering many strong female players have national federation ratings, but not FIDE ones, due to the expense) I can't think of a single reason why this person deserves an article. You might consider this is a joke, but thinking about it, I think I have at least as much notability in chess as her. (Not a national champion, but higher rating and certain coaching/writing accomplishments) That's sad. Every chess person mentioned here should have a hundred times my notability.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think we can at least agree that we have fundamentally opposed viewpoints. I am attaching some semblance of importance to someone who is outstanding in their own small field, whereas you seem to be very focused on rating and ranking. Like Quale, I don't see how your approach benefits an encyclopedia that is surely large enough to embrace a meaningful (and not token) appreciation of chess from across the world. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Notability criteria for chess biographies has been discussed several times here in project talk, and from those discussions and this one I think it's safe to say that we don't have a general agreement for a usual standard of notability. I can say that I am one of the most inclusive (maybe even the most inclusive), and that others have suggested that only GMs should be included. Others have pointed out that there are a lot of GMs today and many of them aren't very notable, so maybe we should only include the highest ranked players, maybe the top 200. One of the best suggestions was that Wikipedia should only have 100 chess bios in total. I think that was offered in complete seriousness, although at the time that would have required deleting more than a thousand pages.
- Although I agree that Wikipedia is missing bios for many chess players who are more important than the Egyptian women's champion, that fact is completely irrelevant and has no weight in this discussion at all. If Wikipedia articles were a finite resource that we needed to conserve, then you might argue we need those more important bios instead of this one. But they have nothing to do with each other at all. Deleting this page would not help in any way to create the missing bios. I believe that not only is there plenty of room in Wikipedia for a bio page for every player who qualified for the Women's World Chess Championship 2014, but that Wikipedia would be better if it had all those bios. I know that not everyone agrees, but I'm afraid I really don't understand why anyone thinks deleting this page would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It seems we are unlikely to agree on that point, but that happens sometimes. Quale (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia has unlimited space" is a reasonable position, sure. However, I simply recall a number of pages we have deleted (some of which I recall you and Brittle Heaven agreeing with) of chess personalities far more notable than this one. So if nothing else, it would definitely help to have clearer criteria in this area. Should we simply open up the floodgates to every achievement, no matter how minor? I'm okay with that if it's applied consistently. On a slightly related note, the FIDE process for the Women's knockout "World Championships" is a joke and a disgrace, and shouldn't be considered significant. How can it, when of the 65-odd people invited they include those not even ranked among the top 2,000 active female players? (Yes, there are even women rated significantly lower than the Egyptian representatives) That would be like the best basketball player from Mongolia being participated to a basketball championship ahead of a starter in the NBA.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think we can at least agree that we have fundamentally opposed viewpoints. I am attaching some semblance of importance to someone who is outstanding in their own small field, whereas you seem to be very focused on rating and ranking. Like Quale, I don't see how your approach benefits an encyclopedia that is surely large enough to embrace a meaningful (and not token) appreciation of chess from across the world. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Where is "national champion" articulated as a meaningful distinction? It should depend on the country, no? (By the way, she got the WIM title BECAUSE she was a national champion. Her rating is way, way too low to qualify otherwise. And a WIM title by itself is nowhere near notable enough) For instance, we don't automatically have articles about the best basketball player in Mongolia, do we? Also, we're missing articles on the overwhelming majority of junior WORLD champions of either gender, several of Egypt's GMs, and countless Egyptian national overall champions, which no one is particularly concerned about. (And actually, I would agree that most of them aren't very important, but still many times moreso than this person) However, a meaningless national champion ranked 1423rd in the world among active women is notable?! (And even that's overly generous, considering many strong female players have national federation ratings, but not FIDE ones, due to the expense) I can't think of a single reason why this person deserves an article. You might consider this is a joke, but thinking about it, I think I have at least as much notability in chess as her. (Not a national champion, but higher rating and certain coaching/writing accomplishments) That's sad. Every chess person mentioned here should have a hundred times my notability.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm with Quale on this one. For all of my time here, we have consistently looked at a wide spectrum of distinctions when gauging notability. So ideally a GM/WGM, but if not, we would take into account other worthy achievements, like published writer, national champion, successful coach, Olympiad team member etc. There are numerous examples of where this has been done and accordingly, a national champion with the WIM title, playing board one for her country and competing in the World Championship, must surely qualify for an article. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I won't nominate it myself because I don't like destroying other people's work... but if someone nominates it I won't oppose deletion. Her CV is rather unimpressive. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- According to what source is an Egyptian women's chess champion notable enough? From what I'm aware, the usual standard is Grandmaster for men and at least Women's Grandmaster for women (a title considered lower than International Master). We have deleted players ten times more notable, prominent, and stronger in the chess world than this person. Actually, you're quite wrong about Egypt; they're ranked the 48th country in the world and they have four 2500+ rated GMs (at least two of which don't appear on Wikipedia at all). I'm not sure what the last few lines mean; are you suggesting a gender quota be used for the purposes of notability? If you're concerned with Egypt's representation, feel free to start pages about Egypt's grandmasters and their countless International Masters and multi-time overall Egyptian champions. The player in question isn't even close to the top 100 active players in Egypt, by the way. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oddly I don't see anything in any notability criteria about chess rating or world ranking. The Egyptian women's chess champion is sufficient for notability (if reliable sources can be found, as always). Her page is also linked from Chess at the 2011 Pan Arab Games (she was first board on the bronze medal winning team) and Women's World Chess Championship 2014, and it does not improve the encyclopedia to remove pages to create red links. One of the ways to improve the encyclopedia is to build the web, and building the web requires making the meaningful links work, not destroying them. I think every qualifier for the women's chess championship should have a page, regardless of your opinion of their ability. There will very naturally be few pages on Egyptian chess players here on EnWiki since Egypt is not a world chess power, but currently there are only three (Category:Egyptian chess players), with only one woman. Working to make that number drop to two men and no women is not something I would be proud to do. Quale (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, she does not meet notability criteria, considering she is rated only 2009 Elo, and 1423rd in the world among active women. (FIDE Master is 2300+ and International Master (IM) is 2400+, neither of which is considered notable enough by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, either) Ditto for the WIM title. (Frankly, even WGM, which is ranked below IM, should be borderline) Since she doesn't have any other achievements, this should be deleted. Since it's been a long time since I regularly contributed and I keep screwing up the protocol, does anyone else want to start the AfD? Thanks. :) ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately we don't have a page for the Egyptian Chess Championship. I searched for information about the Egyptian championship several years ago and came up empty. Looking today I also found nothing. It may be that Arabic sources are required, but I'm not equipped to make use of them. Quale (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree about the world championship, but it's not the place of an encyclopedia to question FIDE Policy, or report only the parts of chess history that make better, more objective sense. In respect of article voting, consistency is definitely key; and whilst there's no 'definitive' list of worthwhile achievements, I would always give weight to published authors, national champions, national team members, coaches with notable students and even junior champions (to an extent). Clearly there are other achievements that are more difficult to assess like organizer, arbiter, and successful players that pre-date titles and Elo, but these may also need to be factored in. Added to a consideration of title and rating, I would hope I've judged article merits in a balanced and sensible manner, although with all such things, it can never be a precise calculation. If you feel I have opposed more important articles, then I can only assume that you are again basing everything on Elo/title, but I'd be happy to see an example. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have added more info to her page today and will try to get more. Looking at what she has done in the past couple of years, I think going for AfD would be premature. Jkmaskell (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I don't like "national champion" as a criteria if the opposition in that country is weak. (In this case with regards to gender, since we're discussing a woman's, and not an overall champion) Do you believe the champion (overall or women's) of Zimbabwe or Guatemala deserves a Wikipedia article? I don't, any more than the best basketballer from Mongolia. But if you do, let's at least be clear and consistent throughout. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like Brittle heaven I too would be interested in seeing any examples you can come up with in which I !voted to delete at an AFD for a more noteworthy chess player. I haven't participated in many AFDs lately, but I have occasionally voted to delete for chess bios that I thought were intended primarily as self-promotion for persons without significant achievement in chess. Chess bio AFDs have almost always yielded the results I thought appropriate. The only exception I can recall in the last few years was the deletion of a chess journalist/broadcaster. I really wish I could have found a way to save it, but sources on chess media members can be hard to find. I suspect that you just mean I have supported deleting some chess bios of players with higher ratings. For me, rating is not the primary measurement of achievement in chess, unless we are considering the super-GM level or are talking about very highly rated U16 players or the like.
- Yes I do think the champions of Zimbabwe and Guatemala should have Wikipedia articles, and if Mongolia has a Olympic basketball team I think Wikipedia should have articles on its team members too. These articles would likely be rather short, but I'm ok with short articles if we don't have much to say about a subject. The length of the articles is a rough indication of the importance of the subject, so Paul Morphy has a longer article than Henry Hosmer. I think that's very clear and consistent. I might be misreading this, but you seem to be somewhat offended by the idea that chess players that you consider unworthy would have articles. I find this strange, and I don't put any moral or other value in the articles. Existence of a wikipedia article is not a stamp of approval indicating that the subject is an elite chess player, it's just supposed to be statements of fact. (For example, Ayah Moaataz is the 2014 Egyptian women's chess champion. I don't see being the Egyptian women's champion as such as small thing. For example, I couldn't do it even if I were a much better chess player.) Many of the participants in the various American Chess Congresses were not strong players by today's standards, and I suspect that the weakest were not strong even in their time compared to the rest of the world (say perhaps compared to the best in Germany). But I think Wikipedia would be a little bit better if it had at least a brief article on each of the participants, filling in the red links on the American Chess Congress page. I really, really, don't see how it would make wikipedia worse if those links worked, or how it makes wikipedia so much better that they don't. But this offends you for some reason, and I don't think I will ever understand why. Anyway, at this point I'm repeating myself, and I think I don't have anything more to offer as explanation why I think wikipedia should have at least a brief article for every national champion of an internationally recognized sport. Quale (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at FIDE rating she has now 2009, and is currently the 490th player in Egypt by ranting. So - notability may be only because of her sex or age (17). To my best knowledge , 17 old girls on top level are around 2400-2500. --Yoavd (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I don't like "national champion" as a criteria if the opposition in that country is weak. (In this case with regards to gender, since we're discussing a woman's, and not an overall champion) Do you believe the champion (overall or women's) of Zimbabwe or Guatemala deserves a Wikipedia article? I don't, any more than the best basketballer from Mongolia. But if you do, let's at least be clear and consistent throughout. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have added more info to her page today and will try to get more. Looking at what she has done in the past couple of years, I think going for AfD would be premature. Jkmaskell (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
New article Essam El-Gindy could use some love
A new editor created a page on Egyptian GM Essam El-Gindy that could use some love. I should help to fix it myself, but someone here may be able to do it better. Quale (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm keeping an eye on this page. The article is a list which need converting to prose and the references need putting into correct wikitext, all do-able. I have to ask whether one of the editors, User:Elgandol, is the player himself? The Talk page appears to be a copy of the Wikipage for El-Gindy. If thats the case, Im not calling for him not to contribute but we will need to be sure of the sources. I'll do what I can to help with the editing. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- This has now been addressed on the article talk page but I repeat here to clarify. User:Elgandol is indeed the player and as such will have no further input into the article aside from requests on the talk page. I will be working on this article as a priority, to ensure that everything in the article is suitably referenced. Jkmaskell (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yuriy Kryvoruchko page move
It appears someone has done some page moving regarding Ukrainian GM Kryvoruchko to include a middle name, of which I've never come across. Would somebody more experienced in page moving fix this? "Yuriy Kryvoruchko" is perfectly acceptable by FIDE and Chessbase. This page move doesn't appear to have been discussed anywhere. Jkmaskell (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- User:Aleksandr_Grigoryev seems to be focused on Russian and Ukrainian politics and probably wants to create an article on a Ukrainian politician with the same first name and surname but different patronymic. The Ukrainian politician would definitely qualify for an article under general notability guidelines, though it hasn't been created yet, so creating a disambiguation page is fair enough. It's just that on the English wikipedia we don't really disambiguate based on patronymics, as they do on the Russian and Ukrainian wikipedias. I suggest we move the article to Yuriy Kryvoruchko (chess player) and fix whatever links to it. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- The proper procedure would be to create the page on the Ukrainian politician first, as there is no need to disambiguate from a page that doesn't exist. But once it's done it's more pragmatic to do what MaxBrowne suggests. Even so it will be annoying if the politician's page isn't created relatively soon. My favorite example of this in the last few years was when some fool insisting that we had to move a page on a female chess player because there is a belly dancer with the same name who has videos on youtube. Quale (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- I moved the page to Yuriy Kryvoruchko (chess player) and suggested to User:Aleksandr_Grigoryev that he might want to create an article on the Ukrainian politician rather than creating a disambiguation page when there's nothing (yet) to disambiguate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAleksandr_Grigoryev&diff=635626954&oldid=634703044 MaxBrowne (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- The proper procedure would be to create the page on the Ukrainian politician first, as there is no need to disambiguate from a page that doesn't exist. But once it's done it's more pragmatic to do what MaxBrowne suggests. Even so it will be annoying if the politician's page isn't created relatively soon. My favorite example of this in the last few years was when some fool insisting that we had to move a page on a female chess player because there is a belly dancer with the same name who has videos on youtube. Quale (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please check info about his being Grandmaster already. I have opened a topic in article's Talk page. I have some doubts that he is GM already. M.Karelin (talk) 08:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please see talk page. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- His rating currently more than 2500 !! Is he GM now? M.Karelin (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently held in March 2015 now in Sochi. Source. There also is Women's World Chess Championship 2015. What do we do about naming then? Maybe WWCC March 2014 and WWCC October 2014, or adding (knockout) and (match). -Koppapa (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've moved and disambiguated by format. -Koppapa (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Section blanking by IP
Shock, horror. Actually, I think he's correct. Opinions anyone? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hou_Yifan&diff=next&oldid=636611001 MaxBrowne (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- If a good source is found, such a section could be written. -Koppapa (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Bilbao Masters/Grand Slam Association
The Grand Slam Association page is years out of date and seems only to duplicate information that is already contained in the Bilbao Chess Masters page. The Association page should obviously be about the organisation behind the Bilbao event but that can easily be incorporated in the Bilbao page as its own section with any changes to qualifying tournament's being named in the relevent year(s).
Does anyone have any objection to us deleting the Grand Slam Chess Association page and doing as above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmaskell (talk • contribs) 15:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. A redirect though is better i think. -Koppapa (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sucks about chesscafe.com
A good number of our links are dead now, or behind a paywall, but most of them can probably be resurrected from archive.org. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tabulation of wins in major recurring tournaments
Is it necessary for it to be added to each player's page? These tournaments will surely have been put into the player's main articles, therefore the tables added to them seem superfluous. I've removed all but the link to the tabulation page from the Sergey Karjakin page, but want to see what general opinion is. Not knocking the idea, which makes sense and can be retained as its own article, but rather the clutter on a players page which could cause confusion. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not a huge fan of those tables, given that they often list tournaments a player could not have played in (because of his/her date of birth) and because there is no source showing whether the tournaments listed in those tables are "major". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. There are inherent WP:OR and bias issues with determining which tournaments are major. The tables require research to aggregate results from multiple sources, and I am not confident that they do not have errors and omissions. There is also no easy way to verify them. The tabulations themselves aren't exactly synthesis of a novel conclusion, but there is an issue with WP:UNDUE since we shouldn't be inventing our own metrics to use to compare chess players. It would be somewhat similar if a baseball editor decided that baseball player articles should include a unique statistic that the editor computed because it is not found in any sources. Even if the numbers that went into the calculations were available in reliable sources and the calculation itself was simple, it would still not be permissible. Finally, I think the tables aren't very attractive and are a nuisance in the articles. I think that Jkmaskell is right and that noteworthy tournament wins should simply be reported in the body of the article. Quale (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Quale on everything. And these tables even add WC match wins to the running total?? Makes no sense at all. --SubSeven (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with all previous comments. I have similar concerns about the table in Comparison of top chess players throughout history#World Champions by world title reigns. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't like this table either, for reasons discussed above. Designating some tournaments "major" is inherently subjective. Also not every tournament held as part of a recurring series is equally "major"; look at the history of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament and the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting and you'll see a number of second string GM's (and even a few non-GMs) among the winners. Also, supertournaments in earlier times tended to be one-off events, e.g. Bled 1931, Nottingham 1936, AVRO 1938 etc so this table also introduces a WP:RECENTISM bias. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've always been against these tabulated results. The 'Head-to-head against selected grandmasters' scores can also be very randomly, or subjectively selected, with the same problems for verifiability and accuracy. Does someone go around them all and update them every time a tournament is played? I think not. Check out Vladimir Kramnik, who now has nearly fifty head-to-head scores listed. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The head-to-head records are ridiculous to maintain and I think would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's just a pile of statistics with no rhyme or reason. --SubSeven (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to the work that a few editors have invested in creating the head-to-head and major tournament wins tabulations, and occasionally they even update some of them to try to keep them slightly current. For that reason I didn't have the heart to try to remove them from articles. I didn't realize there were this many editors who share the same concerns about them, and I agree with all the issues mentioned so far including the serious recentism problem noted by Max. Head-to-head records were discussed previously at WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive 29#Head to Head records.
- One small point is that sometimes selected head-to-head records can be found directly in our sources, and in that case they may be appropriate to include. For example, Geller's significant plus records against Fischer and other WCs is well known and often reported. Another example is that head-to-head records between WC contestants are often reported before the matches, and those can go in the article on the match if they can be reliably sourced. Reliably sourced does not mean hand tabulated by querying a database such as chessgames.com and counting the results—the source should directly state the cumulative score and we should have a publication date for the claim. (Most database queries simply can't be dated reliably. How can I verify what a chessgames.com query returned five years ago, or even five days ago? This is significantly different than disappearance of online sources, as in theory they can be archived at a particular version.) Quale (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Korchnoi's excellent record against Tal is also noteworthy. Chessgames.com is very incomplete and games are added to it in a haphazard way. It is not really a reliable source for anything (I looked myself up there and discovered I was dead!), let alone players' head to head records. It's a convenient way to link to a chess game and a player profile, which is about all I use it for on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to everybody for their comments. Its pretty clear there is agreement to remove the tables from the players pages, retaining the overall table on the main page. Therefore I will proceed to edit them out. As for the other issues, we'll get to those in time. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- It got restored. I hate it, it's a really ugly table, and not even informative. Chess tournament. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since no one here wrote in favor of the table, I removed it again with an edit summary asking that it be discussed here before restoring the table. 06:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. A little surprised since the editor who put it back in isn't a newbie. Oh well. Jkmaskell (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't aware of this discussion when I restored the table. After reading this, I agree that we need not keep the table. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
New, lousy article
Please take note of the following new, highly flawed article: List of highest tpr chess. It's full of unsourced statements, grammatical errors and violations of the MOS:. Besides that, it overlaps with some of the information found at List of world records in chess#Highest performance rating in a tournament, where some of it could be moved. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is interesting stuff, but it seems to me like it is original synthesis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not keen on this article. Cant see it going very far. It can be put into an existing article. Jkmaskell (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let's not bite the newbie. Frankly wikipedia treats new editors poorly, I hate the "curating" scheme with its drive by tagging. The guy obviously put some work into the article. Let it develop naturally, maybe at some point the material can be incorporated into another article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- It looks to me like it is original work by that editor. He probably defined "TPR" and did the work. He only has contributed to that article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was actually expecting far worse, heh. It's a rather pointless article (ratings will of course go up over time), and the last table is utterly pointless, since including performance ratings of 2647-2800 is absurd, considering all the players with regular ratings higher than that, but it might be salvageable...ChessPlayerLev (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did some cleanup on it and gave it a better title, it might be salvageable now. Still needs better sourcing. List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of objections I have is that (1) ratings increase over time, and so do performance ratings; (2) it seems like original work of the editor. He probably defined the term, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Caveats about rating inflation are included (in awkward English which needs fixing). He didn't invent the term Tournament Performance Ratings or the abbreviation "TPR", but the original research objection is valid. Still should be able to find sources for most of these, e.g. ChessBase, TWIC MaxBrowne (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of objections I have is that (1) ratings increase over time, and so do performance ratings; (2) it seems like original work of the editor. He probably defined the term, etc. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did some cleanup on it and gave it a better title, it might be salvageable now. Still needs better sourcing. List of highest chess Tournament Performance Ratings. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but inflation isn't taken into account. I think I can show that the first table is statistically meaningless. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- For instance, look at the speed of the winners at List of Indianapolis 500 winners year by year. The more recent ones are faster. That is because the cars are faster. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, you're incorrect. TPR is a widely used and accepted term; it certainly wasn't created by the editor writing the article. Also, higher ratings are not merely the products of inflation. Yes, there is some inflation, but a 2700 player today is significantly stronger than a 2600 player 20 years ago. Amusingly enough, Emil Sutovsky made a Facebook post about this question today, and a number of GMs (young and old alike) weighed in with similar sentiments. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- I was concerned the article might still be original research under the Wikipedia definition, but looking at the page today I like it better than I did six weeks ago. (If that's true, it suggests it's better to avoid rushing to judgment. Something I might try to get better at.) The page might be comparable to something such as on-base percentage, which is definitely a wikipedia article topic. (A 2700 player today is definitely stronger than 2600 was 20 years ago, but I would argue that's less certain compared to 40 years ago when 2670 was #2 in the world.) Quale (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, the editor didn't make up the term "Tournament Performance Rating". But he is going by the last column in the table, which is pretty much meaningless. That is why I gave the illustration of the speeds in the car race. Faster cars are like rating inflation. What matters more is, say, how much faster the winner was than the next five finishers. What really matters in the article is the next to last column - the difference in the winner's performance rating compared to the average rating of his opponents. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It could use a lot more sources. -Koppapa (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:CANVASSING, I'd like to keep this article. It's well researched and cites sources, no BLP issues etc. Deletionists get me down. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's a nice article but unfortunately its fate now seems inevitable. Kind of like a well researched article about the history of a village church or something - of interest to local historians and people associated with that church, but not so much to the world at large. Meanwhile pokemon and porn star articles survive... (sigh) MaxBrowne (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
American Chess Masters template
What do people think about the {{American Chess Masters}} template? It has a lot of problems now, but at least potentially some of them can be corrected. (Obvious missing notables up to the 1980s include Paul Morphy (!), Jackson Showalter, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, Frank Marshall, Isaac Kashdan, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Robert Byrne, Larry Evans, Arthur Bisguier, Pal Benko, and Walter Browne, and there are more names to include from the last 30 years.) I'm more concerned about issues that I think are difficult or impossible to resolve, and I find these kinds of templates troublesome and not very helpful. If "chess master" is taken simply and literally, hundreds of names should be included even if it is necessarily restricted to American players with Wikipedia articles. Otherwise I suggest instead either creating List of American chess players or directing people to Category:American chess players. Quale (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I created the template relatively recently, so I might have omitted some players unintentionally. The reason why I did create it was that I found it difficult to navigate between articles about US players; for instance, Category:American chess players lists them alphabetically, so the top players are blended with other, less notable ones. Similarly, Category:Chess competitions exists alongside with {{Chess_tournaments}} template - thanks to the latter it is a lot easier to know what the most important tournaments are. The players in template were listed according to FIDE ratings (http://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml?ina=1&country=USA) - I took top 20 GMs, and also included some others I though of as being notable/famous enough. In my opinion these kinds of templates are quite useful in making chess articles more navigable; yet I would be happy to hear what others think about that. Philodemos (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorting in the template is strange. Also no inclusion criteria is bad. -Koppapa (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have little experience in creating templates; besides the question of whether it should or should not be deleted, what kind of problems it has? Philodemos (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Some thought needs to be put into this as the term "masters" is a bit tricky as it wont mean the same elsewhere. Of course if we use the term "Grandmaster", we miss the very strong players from before FIDE. As [[User:Koppapa] indicates, I suggest chronological order be used for sorting (Nakamura wasn't the first) rather than whatever order the editor picks. It'll look a bit strange if only the US is done this way, though Im curious how Russia/Soviet Union would be done. There's also the nagging question of why we need this template when we have Wikipedia categories at the bottom of the page? Food for thought... Jkmaskell (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of chess historians
The article List of chess historians has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unsourced list of people with unclear inclusion criteria. While a handful seem notable for their writings on chess, it's unclear where writing about chess stops and being a "chess historian" begins. The articles of several of those who are notable enough to have articles say little to nothing about being a "chess historian". I'm not finding sufficient sources to say this is a notable subject for a stand-alone list either.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
- I didn't propose List of chess historians for deletion, but I support deletion for the reasons given. There are no clear inclusion criteria for this list, and it has a history of questionable or simply bad self-promotional additions (for example [1]). Even entries that are sort of OK have issues. Consider Kasparov. Kasparov has written about the history of chess, but he isn't known for his historical research. I think most people would consider his writings about the history of chess to be nearly insignificant compared to the importance of his part in that history. Most of people in the list do not have articles and none of the entries have any explanation, making the list basically worthless. Instead I think we should add a section for chess historians to History of chess and explain briefly what contributions each person made to the study of the history of chess. No redlinks should be included unless there is a good explanation with a cited source detailing that person's contribution. Quale (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd put up a fight if there was a bit more substance to the article, but it's just.... a list of chess historians. Big deal, we have a category for that. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Added the USA flag there for Polgar, as the Women's World Chess Championship 1996 article suggests. But was she really AMerican back then? -Koppapa (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- FIDE listed her as Hungarian at least until 2001, possibly later. http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Polgar,%20Zsuzsa.html MaxBrowne (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. This confirms she wasn't American when the match was played, although she was aldeady seeking to get citizenship. I'm gonna replace the flags. This sounds like she only played for US after coming out of retirement in 2003, but it isn't clear about it. -Koppapa (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Checked the FIDE archive, January 2003 was the first to list her as American. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. This confirms she wasn't American when the match was played, although she was aldeady seeking to get citizenship. I'm gonna replace the flags. This sounds like she only played for US after coming out of retirement in 2003, but it isn't clear about it. -Koppapa (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been doing some work to try to bring this article up to standard. Judging by current FIDE rating regulations, "TPR" no longer has any official status in FIDE. I am also concerned that the original author invented his own method of calculating TPR, which would be original research. I propose simplifying the whole calculation using the formula given by Mark Weeks, i.e
Rp = Ra + 400 * (Wins - Losses) / Gms
where Rp is performance rating, Ra is average rating of opponents, Gms is number of games. There are other ways of calculating TPR but this is the simplest.
Maybe tournaments where some of the opponents were unrated or rated more than 400 lower (e.g. Sofia Polgar in Rome 1989) should be excluded too. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shouln't say a 2800 performance rating (scoring points in games against a 2600 opposition mean, that the achieved score would have been expected by elo from a 2800 elo rated player before the tournament? With Elo_rating_system#Mathematical_details the formula would be tpr=-(log(games/points-1)/log(10)*400-averageopponentrating). -Koppapa (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This explaines the rating-formulas. Mine cited is the true mathematical model, your's above could be the fide one. -Koppapa (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Added more text to lead, tried to explain the basic goal (approximation of pre-tournament rating R, so that the expected score of a player rated R is equal to the score of the player). And mentioned different formualas. The tables obviously need work, unclear what formulas they use. We probably should go by FIDE's method.-Koppapa (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestions:
- * Describe the different formulas in the article, and give the results for all three calculations, with priority to the "mathematical" calculation. On the other hand maybe that would be WP:OR too, since the page you linked to is self-published.
- * Get rid of the strongest opponent/weakest opponent columns, just the average rating is all we need.
- * Have a minimum threshold for opponents' ratings, so that performances such as Wesley So's 9/9 vs much weaker players in an open tournament in the Philippines don't get included. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Suggestions:
- Added more text to lead, tried to explain the basic goal (approximation of pre-tournament rating R, so that the expected score of a player rated R is equal to the score of the player). And mentioned different formualas. The tables obviously need work, unclear what formulas they use. We probably should go by FIDE's method.-Koppapa (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- This explaines the rating-formulas. Mine cited is the true mathematical model, your's above could be the fide one. -Koppapa (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Probably Fide should be used. Would be quite some calculating though. I'm not interested enough in that. :-) -Koppapa (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Recent AfD for the ridiculously named list of online chess playing programs closed as redirect to list of chess software. Creator of the original pasted the whole deleted list into the latter, complete with redlinks, primary sources, and redundant entries (i.e. it was redirect because there's nothing to merge). He/she is now edit warring (and was apparently upset with me enough to file a short-lived SPI on me). 3RR has not yet been breached and this is so trivial I'm reluctant to go to ANI yet. Would someone mind just reverting this nonsense so I'm not the only one? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I kind of agree, but it's not the biggest problem the article has. There is no inclusion criteria. Not much of a description. -Koppapa (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Use gender-neutral language
For anyone who remembers the discussions we've had about the use of gender-generic "he", the GNL section at WP:MOS now includes the "avoid the generic he" phrase. Georgia guy (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I think it is awkward to use "he and she", and using "they" is usually incorrect. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you really think singular they is incorrect (not just disliked, but incorrect)?? It dates to hundreds of years ago; it is not a 20th century novelty created to avoid androcentrism. Georgia guy (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is what I've been told, on WP even. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at the policy it seems "he or she" is considered fine if not repeated too often and there's no consensus on the singular they. If it really annoys you Bubba73 then I guess see if the sentence can be reworded to avoid it. Storeye (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is what I've been told, on WP even. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- When we were trying to get Rules of chess to GA, a reviewer insisted on general-neutral pronouns. I changed them all to "he or she" and I hated the result. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I usually try to write around it and avoid using 3rd person singular pronouns but it's not always easy; chess literature has traditionally used "he". Singular "they" is gaining increasing acceptance, some prefer to be known as "they" on wikipedia and not disclose their gender, some people even use it as their "preferred pronoun" in real life. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with the goal of using gender neutral language, but it can be difficult or awkward at times. "He or she" is OK if used occasionally, but I think the effect is awful if it is repeated often, and "often" for me might be as little as twice. (To be truly neutral I think we should alternate "he or she" with "she or he", Actually my preferred solution would be to uniformly use "she" as the gender neutral pronoun for the next few hundred years to even things out a bit.) I've grown to accept singular "they" and now I'm perfectly comfortable with it. English doesn't seem to offer a better solution and it's usually the best option. The problem here is that sometimes "they" just doesn't work at all in chess contexts since it can be ambiguous whether "they" refers to White or Black individually or White and Black together. I don't want to overstate the difficulty or lead anyone to believe I think this is an insurmountable issue, but it does make things harder for chess articles. Quale (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reading the page Rules of chess, it now seems to contain a mash-up of singular they, "he or she", and generic "he". I personally think the singular they is the most elegant and it seems to be the most common in the article. Storeye (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Quale, you say you're normally okay with singular they, but not in chess. Can you be more general than chess with when you're not okay?? Please note that this info comes from your edit summary. Georgia guy (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I haven't given this a lot of thought, so I apologize that I don't have a perfect example. Take this sentence from Rules of chess: "If a player touches one of the opponent's pieces then he or she must capture that piece if it can be captured." If it instead said "If a player touches one of the opponent's pieces then they must capture that piece if it can be captured", then "they must capture" would be a poor choice because it would be unclear who was doing the capturing. You could reason that only the moving player can capture and that is correct, but an explanation of the rules should be very clear and should not require the reader to puzzle over the wording. I think there are other similar cases where the ambiguity is more severe and can't easily be resolved by context. That's why I think singular they can be difficult to use in chess articles. The same issues might occur when discussing any two-player game, so I don't claim that this difficulty is unique to chess. Quale (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've just rewritten that paragraph to avoid both "he or she" or the singular they/their. See if it's acceptable to you. Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's good, I think the fixes work well. When I quickly scanned through rules of chess to try to find an example of the issue that I think makes singular they troublesome in chess articles, I was actually more concerned by the article's description of en passant. "If a white pawn moves forward two squares and Black has a pawn on the fourth rank on an adjacent file, Black can capture White's pawn as if the white pawn had moved only one square. This capture can be made only on the immediately subsequent move." Completely gender neutral, but a reader might reasonably conclude that only Black can capture e.p. Quale (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'd prefer using "White"/"Black" or "White's"/"Black's" repeatedly to using constructions like "he or she" or "his or her". And the singular they, while attested for hundreds of years, has still not found widespread acceptance. (Note that the MOS does not prescribe the use of any of these alternatives.) Cobblet (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- From Modern Benoni: "It is possible, indeed common, for Black to reverse the order of his second and third moves [...]" → "It is possible, indeed common, for Black to reverse the order of Black's second and third moves [...]"!? Or more simply, "Black moved Black's king"!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- You understand me correctly: I'd prefer that over "Black moved his or her king" or "Black moved their king". OTOH "Black moved the king" would probably be best, and so would "It is possible, indeed common, for Black's second and third moves to be reversed". You know, maybe I'll go see if I can rewrite the Modern Benoni article to omit the generic he/his completely. Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I've done just that. Check the latest revision to the Modern Benoni article and let me know if I missed any other instances. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for performing that demonstration. Chess openings might be a little easier to handle because the descriptions are almost always asymmetric between White and Black. Discussion of chess rules or general principles (development, positional play, etc.) are often symmetric between White and Black so this tactic might not be as applicable there. But I don't discourage anyone from trying. Just because I find it difficult does not mean that it is difficult for everyone. Also if it isn't too hard to use gender-neutral language in chess articles then we should definitely do it. (And if it's hard but possible we should still do it, but it will probably take longer.) Quale (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cobblet - still an instance of "he" under Kapengut variation - Maybe I'm worrying needlessly, but does anyone imagine the hordes of anonymous editors who dip in every day and pay scant regard to even the basic rules of the English language would give GNL issues any consideration at all? Even if GNL articles could be put in place overnight, they would soon evolve into a mix of GNL and non-GNL, which will surely read much worse than if they'd been left alone in the first place. Conversely, if the anon crowd surprised me with their willingness to conform to GNL, they would not be privy to the conversations being had here about the practical steps and conventions that would be needed to make it work. It'll be a mess, won't it? I know it's a negative stance, but can anyone explain how this could all turn out well? Brittle heaven (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Everything you say is true; but inconsistency in formatting is a "problem" (it is sometimes overblown, IMO) we deal with on Wikipedia all the time. For example, rules of chess not only features a mix of GNL and non-GNL, but also mixes usage of "he or she" with the singular they. We'll have to do what we can (I did fix the occurrence you pointed out, thanks.) Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cobblet's right. Many if not most articles are a mash up of GNL and non-GNL. Trying to convert them all to GNL will make it more consistent not less. You're correct Brittle Heaven that it'll probably continue being an issue when new people add text unaware of policy but starting from a base of consistency couldn't possible make things worse. Storeye (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Everything you say is true; but inconsistency in formatting is a "problem" (it is sometimes overblown, IMO) we deal with on Wikipedia all the time. For example, rules of chess not only features a mix of GNL and non-GNL, but also mixes usage of "he or she" with the singular they. We'll have to do what we can (I did fix the occurrence you pointed out, thanks.) Cobblet (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Cobblet - still an instance of "he" under Kapengut variation - Maybe I'm worrying needlessly, but does anyone imagine the hordes of anonymous editors who dip in every day and pay scant regard to even the basic rules of the English language would give GNL issues any consideration at all? Even if GNL articles could be put in place overnight, they would soon evolve into a mix of GNL and non-GNL, which will surely read much worse than if they'd been left alone in the first place. Conversely, if the anon crowd surprised me with their willingness to conform to GNL, they would not be privy to the conversations being had here about the practical steps and conventions that would be needed to make it work. It'll be a mess, won't it? I know it's a negative stance, but can anyone explain how this could all turn out well? Brittle heaven (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for performing that demonstration. Chess openings might be a little easier to handle because the descriptions are almost always asymmetric between White and Black. Discussion of chess rules or general principles (development, positional play, etc.) are often symmetric between White and Black so this tactic might not be as applicable there. But I don't discourage anyone from trying. Just because I find it difficult does not mean that it is difficult for everyone. Also if it isn't too hard to use gender-neutral language in chess articles then we should definitely do it. (And if it's hard but possible we should still do it, but it will probably take longer.) Quale (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I've done just that. Check the latest revision to the Modern Benoni article and let me know if I missed any other instances. Cobblet (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- You understand me correctly: I'd prefer that over "Black moved his or her king" or "Black moved their king". OTOH "Black moved the king" would probably be best, and so would "It is possible, indeed common, for Black's second and third moves to be reversed". You know, maybe I'll go see if I can rewrite the Modern Benoni article to omit the generic he/his completely. Cobblet (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- From Modern Benoni: "It is possible, indeed common, for Black to reverse the order of his second and third moves [...]" → "It is possible, indeed common, for Black to reverse the order of Black's second and third moves [...]"!? Or more simply, "Black moved Black's king"!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Brittle it's a nest of potential problem. Could the cure be worse than the disease? Reconfiguring sentences to rid them at all costs of generic pronoun is not necessarily a natural way to think or write. Many times the first way chosen to express a message is fundamentally the most natural and intuitive and effective way. In that context reconfigurations then are a form of "overthinking" which usually produces an inherently weaker result. Is the generic pronoun so evil that writing must become a reconfiguration "problem-excersize"? In addition, your primary workhorse to replace "he" with "the first player" or "the second player" not only introduces chess lingo, but is wordier and less laconic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, I don't think the writing in Modern Benoni has become weaker as a result of the edits over the last few days. (I have now also edited out instances of "first player" and "second player" to represent White/Black.) I don't want to suggest that writing in this way is easy, and I positively abhor fixes that reek of laziness and lazy political correctness like "he or she" or the singular they (though I stress that this is a personal bias); but I am trying to show that one can sidestep both the generic he and these unsatisfactory (in my view) alternatives, and still write about chess in a way that is natural and efficient. (But it's up to others to decide whether I've succeeded. Further input is welcome.) Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think you've completely succeeded with Modern Benoni. It reads very well and most natural English speakers should be able to do something similar, given time, consideration, an understanding of the flow and structure of an article in it's entirety, an appreciation of the obstacles and pitfalls, and a knowledge of what conventions others are adopting. My only concern is that these conditions are a rarity nowadays. More likely, the typical edit comes from someone who has English as a second language, via a mobile, in a lunch-break, and where little or no effort has been made to understand the context or structure of the article either side of the edit. But I do take the earlier point that structural problems arising this way are already the norm, so perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, any further opportunity to make a mess is nothing special. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- In my humble opinion, I don't think the writing in Modern Benoni has become weaker as a result of the edits over the last few days. (I have now also edited out instances of "first player" and "second player" to represent White/Black.) I don't want to suggest that writing in this way is easy, and I positively abhor fixes that reek of laziness and lazy political correctness like "he or she" or the singular they (though I stress that this is a personal bias); but I am trying to show that one can sidestep both the generic he and these unsatisfactory (in my view) alternatives, and still write about chess in a way that is natural and efficient. (But it's up to others to decide whether I've succeeded. Further input is welcome.) Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with Brittle it's a nest of potential problem. Could the cure be worse than the disease? Reconfiguring sentences to rid them at all costs of generic pronoun is not necessarily a natural way to think or write. Many times the first way chosen to express a message is fundamentally the most natural and intuitive and effective way. In that context reconfigurations then are a form of "overthinking" which usually produces an inherently weaker result. Is the generic pronoun so evil that writing must become a reconfiguration "problem-excersize"? In addition, your primary workhorse to replace "he" with "the first player" or "the second player" not only introduces chess lingo, but is wordier and less laconic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Chess Life images for deletion
See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 March 4#Chess Life. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I never have understood wikipedia/wikimedia foundation image use policy. For example I'd like to include this photo in the Robert Forbes Combe article, it comes from the 1946 British Championship tournament book, but I suspect it would be challenged if I claimed "fair use" or whatever. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Max, many of the 'claimed fair use' images I put on around 2008 are still there now. A good example is William Fairhurst. However, any new pic will need a detailed 'rationale' box such as the one you'll see there (it can be easily copied and the data amended) - the license box would not be enough. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Notability guidelines
Could someone please point me to the notability guidelines? I want to know if Nino Maisuradze is notable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Notability of chess players can be quite a complex subject that has been discussed in great detail here over the years. Ultimately, everyone's Wikipedia notability hinges on the concept of 'significant coverage in reputable sources'. We do however have various 'rules of thumb' that might give us a clue; FIDE's most prestigious titles (like GM, WGM), major successes like representing the national side, or winning the national championship are three such indicators that would strongly suggest notability. I would say therefore, that Nino Maisuradze will be comfortably notable. It is not difficult to imagine that a scan of the leading international chess magazines for example, would turn up numerous mentions of her many achievements. Of course the article is currently not adequately sourced, and is written in very poor English, but these are all things that can be easily rectified. I hope that helps. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Brittle heaven. Thank you kindly for the thoughtful and valuable feedback. It is also good news for the article.
- Maybe some sort of essay would be helpful as a notability guideline. It could cite common outcomes of chess player-related AfDs.
- Twice French Women's champion is probably just enough to establish notability, but it's close. Marie Sebag and Sophie Milliet are much stronger, and a peak rating of 2349 isn't a big deal. Articles about stronger players (i.e. IM's) have been deleted in the past. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Twice is unnecessary, since one-time French Women's champion is sufficient for notability. But the ultimate determiner is WP:GNG, in other words whether or not there are good sources. Quale (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Twice French Women's champion is probably just enough to establish notability, but it's close. Marie Sebag and Sophie Milliet are much stronger, and a peak rating of 2349 isn't a big deal. Articles about stronger players (i.e. IM's) have been deleted in the past. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is there any hope for an essay? There is even one for cycling. How about an entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes? See User:Anna Frodesiak/White sandbox. Can that possibly go anywhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have Tim Krabbe's "Chess Curiosities"?
It's a rare and sought after book which changes hands for $200+ on the second hand market. I've read it but don't have my own copy. I distinctly remember the Petrovic study that I gave in the Retrograde analysis article, and I want to cite the book as a source. I don't know which page the Petrovic study appears in, but I think it's in the chapter on castling. Can anyone help me with the cite? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe this name is standard for 1.g3. Benko hardly invented the move (it was played by e.g. Reti) and is usually just called the King's Fianchetto Opening. Furthermore, 1.g3 has little independent significance and is highly transpositional in nature with little in the way of concrete lines - both players usually just do their own thing for the first several moves until their respective set-ups begin to take shape. So the attempts to organize the article by Black's reply, White's reply, Black's reply doesn't really work. Also the links to the wikibook on chess openings are useless. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a standard name for it at all? How common is it actually to call it the King's Fianchetto opening, as opposed to simply "1.g3"? I'm not going to revert your move since I don't see a strong argument either way (and we seem to have an aversion to using algebraic notation to name openings even though that is frequently how chess players refer to openings - not complaining, just pointing it out), but it would be nice to have a couple of sources for the new name (and the alternatives, for that matter). Cobblet (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- We have a clear preference from the Oxford Companion to Chess anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, that's better than nothing. Then again, I wonder how many people outside of our little circle on Wikipedia have even seen a copy of the Oxford Companion, let alone use one, and I wonder whether it's an accurate reflection of popular usage at all. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure if I buy the "popular usage" argument, most players probably just call it "g3", and if you said "Benko Opening" to someone the first thing to come to mind would probably be the Benko Gambit (another name he "stole"). "Popular usage" also includes habitual mispronunciations of fianchetto, Pirc, Alekhine etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not saying we should change it back: I just question whether it's appropriate to speak of any standard name for 1.g3 at all other than, well, 1.g3. I guess King's Fianchetto is as good as any – very reminiscent of the old, somewhat stilted British names for certain openings, "Queen's Pawn Counter Gambit", "Centre Counter Defence" and the like. Not names I've heard people use, but I've never played chess in the UK. (By the way, even Alekhine mispronounced Alekhine.) Cobblet (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted to argue against the move, but after consideration I decided I didn't have a very compelling argument. "King's Fianchetto" is rather dry and uninteresting, but that alone isn't a reason to use Benko's name instead. Quale (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure if I buy the "popular usage" argument, most players probably just call it "g3", and if you said "Benko Opening" to someone the first thing to come to mind would probably be the Benko Gambit (another name he "stole"). "Popular usage" also includes habitual mispronunciations of fianchetto, Pirc, Alekhine etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, that's better than nothing. Then again, I wonder how many people outside of our little circle on Wikipedia have even seen a copy of the Oxford Companion, let alone use one, and I wonder whether it's an accurate reflection of popular usage at all. Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- We have a clear preference from the Oxford Companion to Chess anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
FYI. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A minor matter: could someone smarter than I please reposition the photo of Larry Christiansen that is at Swindle_(chess)#Practical_considerations so there isn't the blank space between it and the diagram on the left? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
AfD update
Merì Grigoryan was recently listed. Also, does Wojciech Bartelski (creator of Olimpbase) meet GNG? I'm inclined to think not. Cobblet (vtalk) 00:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also I just nominated The Classical Slav for deletion here. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Calling Bubba
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 |      | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
(6) White to play draws.
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
| 8 | | 8 | |||||||
| 7 | 7 | ||||||||
| 6 | 6 | ||||||||
| 5 | 5 | ||||||||
| 4 | 4 | ||||||||
| 3 | 3 | ||||||||
| 2 | 2 | ||||||||
| 1 | 1 | ||||||||
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
(7) White to play draws.
Bubba I have outstanding questions for you following your reversion of my changes to the Bishop and knight checkmate article.
These are on the Bishop and knight checkmate Talk page.
Please respond.
Martin Rattigan (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I explained it. Maybe someone here will respond. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The outstanding questions are about your "explanation". Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bubba, I know you're alive, because you continue to edit the bits you reverted and you responded immediately here. Your responses "The above is too long to read, so I'm ignoring it. ... If no one responds on this talk page, take it up on the chess project talk page." and "Maybe someone here will respond." are obviously not even meant to be adequate. You made the reversion, so it's up to you to give valid reasons. Please answer points (a) - (k) here and points (A) - (F) that follow them. Martin Rattigan (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since You are refusing to revert your change or answer on the "Bishop and knight" talk page, I thought I'd better mention here positions (6) and (7) shown right. These are another couple of draws (White to play this time) that Speelman et al seem to have missed off their list of exceptions on p7 of whatever book it is. Could you get them to extend the list to cover these and (5), please? Otherwise the article is incorrect. Can you make sure they include any others as well?
- Martin Rattigan (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bubba, I know you're alive, because you continue to edit the bits you reverted and you responded immediately here. Your responses "The above is too long to read, so I'm ignoring it. ... If no one responds on this talk page, take it up on the chess project talk page." and "Maybe someone here will respond." are obviously not even meant to be adequate. You made the reversion, so it's up to you to give valid reasons. Please answer points (a) - (k) here and points (A) - (F) that follow them. Martin Rattigan (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The outstanding questions are about your "explanation". Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)