Talk:Levitsky versus Marshall

Levitsky versus Marshall was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 25, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
June 18, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the chess game Levitsky versus Marshall, legend has it that the winning move drew a shower of gold coins?

Current status: Delisted good article

On 1 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gold Coins Game. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Title

I think we can have a better title than this. "Golden game" is common on the Internet.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

summary?

Why is the game in the Summary section now? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to a level 4 heading to make it less prominent. But if you look at the table of contents, "summary" is now a subsection of "the game". The Interior (Talk) 19:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a separation to separate the algebraic notation part from the summary.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reorganized the sections. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Levitsky versus Marshall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Very nice. Perhaps add an animation to show every move (that would be excellent). However, no changes are needed. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any need to indicate alternative wins?

This edit by User:ISaveNewspapers was not "wrong", I just thought it didn't add anything much to the article. One mate is as good as another, and insofar as they're both winning, 26...Nxf1 swapping off a pair of rooks and wrecking white's king's side pawns is surely preferable to 26...Ne2+, though in the end it's just a matter of the quickest win (efficiency). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that, for the sake of completeness, chess game articles include all relevant variations. In any case, if you're interested, Stockfish 11+ actually prefers 26...Ne2+ to 26...Nxf1 when evaluated to depth 25, so I guess what you're really arguing is that we should ditch the original example and go with the one that the extremely powerful engine prefers. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I haven't tried it with an engine, most humans would play 26...Nxf1 and that's what appears in all the published notes to the game that I've seen. WP:CHESSENGINE analysis is original research, but if you have a published source that mentions 26....Ne2+ go ahead. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, funny you mention that, MaxBrowne2. From http://www.uschess.org/index.php/August/At-The-Movies.html, which is already cited by this article:

Levitsky sees that 24.Qxg3 Ne2+ 25.Kh1 Nxg3+ 26.Kg1 Ne2+

And there it is. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation

Alright, something's screwy about the annotation. 22.Qg5 is marked as White's losing blunder when that honor should go to 20.Qh5. I looked at all the sources I could access without literally buying a book, and the singular source which paid attention to 22.Qg5 at all says, "Levitsky moves his queen away from the pesky rook with 22.Qg5 but there’s a problem with going there." It's not even a statement that there wouldn't have been problems with other moves, just that this move has one problem peculiar to it.

So here's the deal: 22.Qg5 allows 22...Rxh3, and 23.gxh3 leads to 23...Nf3+ with a fork. That is the move's problem. However, this move is not a mistake: it does not actually worsen White's position; it merely maintains the already-present badness of White's position. You see, there is no good place for the queen to go at all; if either 22.Qg4 or 22.Qd1, then 22...Nf3+ wins the rook on e5 with a discovered attack, as the white queen abandoned defending it.

All of this is original research, of course, so I can't put it into the article; Wikipedia is just supposed to be for repeating what other people said, after all. But the thing is, just because I can't add doesn't mean I can't subtract. See, either the blunder annotation mark is original research, or whatever source provided it is simply incorrect. I am removing it, and let this be my explanation. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stockfish clearly confirms that the losing move was indeed 20.Qh5?? It also indicates that USCF Expert Pete Tamburro's evaluation of the exchange by White, 11.Nxe6, was mistaken, as that is Super-duper-GM Stockfish's preferred move.

It always annoyed me that, in order to reach the position in which Frank Marshall found his brilliant and world famous Queen move, he first had to overlook much simpler moves like 21. ... Rxf2! and earlier, wreck his own queenside pawn structure.

--Greg 2601:803:600:78D0:691E:2B6A:13C9:5D8C (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levitsky versus Marshall → Gold Coins Game – WP:COMMONNAME. 48 JCL 23:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not a common name at all. With a few well-established exceptions like the Evergreen Game, I'm not in favour of using nicknames in articles about chess games in general, especially names that don't appear in pre-internet sources and probably have more to do with chess.com than chess tradition. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.