Talk:Henry Ernest Atkins

white sacrifices everything

should http://blog.chess.com/kenytiger/white-sacrifices-everything be verified and mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.150.12 (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

B-class review

Here is my assessment of the article (this version) against the criteria for B-class.

1. "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary."
   Yes, but: "He was an extremely gifted player who would likely have become one of the world's leading players had he pursued the game more single-mindedly" If I am not mistaken only one single person (Lasker) told that (explained in the section "Chess career") while the Lead gives the feeling it is a common fact. I would suggest to include Lasker's name in the Lead.
2. "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies."
   Yes, but the non-chess stuff is very short. Had he a family ?
3. "The article has a defined structure."
   Yes, but the section "Biography" is too short to stand on its own. And Lasker's assessment is in "Chess career" although it could go in "Playing strength". And the mention of his death could go in the section "Biography". Overall the role of each section could be clarified.
4. "The article is reasonably well written."
   No problem on this side.
5. "The article contains supporting materials where appropriate."
   No illustration makes it a bit dry. Photos or diagrams would be welcome.
6. "The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way."
   No problem on this side, as far as it is possible to present a chess article in an accessible way.

So I think the article is worthy of C-class, but very slightly under what I would personnally consider B-class. SyG (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

After Krakatoa's improvements resulting in this version, the vast majority of shortfalls I expressed above has been addressed, so I am raising the article to B-class. SyG (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

titles

The article says " At that time, awards "were based on subjective and, to a certain extent, political considerations".[34] Since 1970, FIDE has awarded titles based on objective statistical criteria.[35] Today it often awards the Grandmaster title to players with Elo ratings of 2500 and above."

Is this accurate? The initial awards in 1950 were subjective, but with a few exceptions, didn't the norms start then? The FIDE Elo ratings in 1970, but aren't the GM awards still based on norms (or norms and rating)? Bubba73 (talk), 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Elo says (p. 67) "Objective criteria to evaluate the merits of performances of title candidates were introduced in 1957, on a two-tier basis." I don't completely understand what he says after that, but he does say that the concept of title norms was introduced in 1957 (not 1950) - to get a norm, one was supposed to score a certain percentage vs. GMs, a certain higher percentage vs. IMs, and a still higher percentage against untitled players. Id. On page 78 he says, "International titling, as the 4.2 survey [i.e., the stuff around page 67] showed, was largely subjective from 1950 to 1958 {? - surely he means 1957?], modifiedly subjective from 1958 to 1970, and, with certain exceptions, almost entirely objective since 1970." And yes, 1970 is when FIDE adopted Elo ratings and began requiring certain Elo performance levels for norms. Krakatoa (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would omit the second, third, and fourth sentences of that section - the ones about what FIDE did later. I'd say that he got the IM title in 1950 and then talk about the ratings.

IMO the norms are more objective than Elo implies. Either you did or you didn't. And I didn't think rating played a part until recently. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The evolution of the requirements for GM from 1950 through 1965 is described in a fair amount of detail in Grandmaster, and basically agrees with what Elo wrote. Unfortunately we kind of lose the trail after 1965, and we don't give any detail how or when FIDE arrived at the current regulations. Clearly ratings couldn't have played a part until at least 1970, but the GM article doesn't say (because I don't have any sources nor do I know) how the requirements changed from since 1965 to the current regulations. It would be nice to be able to fill this in as it's a gap of over 40 years. Elo's characterization of the 1957 regs as "moderately subjective" seems fair, as norms did not automatically qualify a player for a title because a recommendation from the Qualification Committee was required as well. GM requirements seem objective from the 1965 revision on, so I don't agree with Elo's assessment of the 1965-69 period. In any case, although Atkins was very strong, it is not any subjectivity of the requirements of 1950–1969 that would have prevented him from receiving the GM title. As you know, in those years the title was reserved for the very elite, World Championship caliber players, and Atkins was not in that class. Only later when the GM title became a little bit devalued might he have qualified. Maybe if he had been a chess professional rather than an amateur ... but we can never know. The ultimate problem is that the GM title today is just not the same as it was then, so it doesn't make a good yardstick by which to compare players separated by a couple generations. (Actually today the GM title doesn't even make a good comparison between players within a the same generation, but fortunately we have ratings for that.) You could just as easily say that most of today's GMs wouldn't qualify under the 1950 standards. I think the best we can do is compare him to his contemporaries and note his IM title and leave it at that. This is still very flattering to Atkins. Quale (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentences in question are basically accurate. I nonetheless have deleted the second and third sentences from the section, since I realize now that they may cause the reader to draw an inference I didn't intend - that Atkins didn't get the title in 1950 because of politics or some such reason. Quale is quite right about the diminishment of the title: lots of IMs in 1950 (Sultan Khan and Horowitz leap immediately to mind) would easily be GM's by today's standards, and some of today's GMs would be lucky to be IMs by 1950 standards. I left in the fourth sentence (about how FIDE today often gives the title to 2500 players and up); it seems perfectly appropriate to point out that by modern standards Atkins would almost surely be a GM. Krakatoa (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes titles have really inflated, now even 9-year-old boys can beat a grandmaster. SyG (talk) 11:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with that change. Yes, some of the 1950 IMs would probably beat most of the current GMS (Gligoric et. al.). Even some of the 1951 IMs were Averback and Geller. 1952 Petrosian. Of course, some of these later became GMS. Bubba73 (talk), 02:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)