Talk:List of national chess championships

Supra-national tournaments

It was a good edit to point out that not all the championships are for single nations. Maybe we should split the list into two sections: national tournaments and supra-national tournaments. There are a lot of supra-national tournaments to add: African Individual, European Individual, etc. Quale 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention: this list only has individual championships in it. In some ways a national team championship might not fit well in this list because a team championship for Sweden for instance would have teams representing clubs, and this doesn't really feel like a national championship. On the other hand, if supra-national tournaments are included, something like the European Team Championship would seem to be appropriate. What should we do with team events? Quale 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Chess Championships

From talk pages:

In the Category National Chess Championships there are three different schemes for Women's Chess Championship: 1. A separate category (Dutch Women's Chess Championship, Spanish Women's Chess Championship and U.S. Women's Chess Championship; 2. A separate place in the same category (Australian Chess Championship, Canadian Chess Championship, Romanian Chess Championship, etc.); 3. The same table in the same category (Belgian Chess Championship, Estonian Chess Championship, Polish Chess Championship, etc.). I think, we ought to create only one scheme. Best wishes, Mibelz 19:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could settle on a single way to handle these, but there are some considerations. Putting everything in one table doesn't work well when the men's and women's championships are sometimes held in different cities, such as Romanian Chess Championship. Separate sections should always be fine, although it has the possibility of creating very long articles if we have a lot of material. Right now U.S. Chess Championship isn't very good, but I'd like to significantly expand it with a paragraph of discussion about each individual championship. That would make it pretty long to merge U.S. Women's Chess Championship into it, especially if the U.S. Women's Championship page was also expanded. (I've already added a bit on the 1962 U.S. Women's Ch. to the article, and I should be able to do about the same for every U.S. Women's championship since then as a local library has Chess Life starting from then. Quale 02:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate page for women's championships is in most cases unnecessary. Like Quale suggests, in case there is a lot of information, we can create two lists. So I suggest we merge the Dutch and Spanish championships, and keep the two US championships. I have merged the Dutch championships now. On the way tables should look: I think one table (both men and women) looks better. In case men and women's championship are played differently, I think this looks nice:

Year	City (men)	Winner	City (women)	Women's Winner

This would make all the national championships consistent in layout. Although two tables also work. What do you guys think? Voorlandt 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, two separate tables for the Men's and Women's Winners, in the same category, would be the best solution because of too narrow columns and sometimes different years and cities. For example, Georgian Chess Championship in [1]. Mibelz 8:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well now I have merged the Spanish Chess Championship. In one table alas, didn't see your post on your time. But I don't think it looks that bad, and it is much better now than it was (no table, no cities). Voorlandt 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's best. I think it's OK to experiment for a while to see what we like best. If we get a format that works really well we can always update the other championship articles to use it. I worked over the British Chess Championship article a little (there's still more to be done, as most of the best chess encyclopedias in English seem to be from the UK there's a lot more information on the history and organization of the British Ch. that isn't in the article yet). I put the men and women in a single table. There is actually one year (1936) in which the men and women played in different cities, but I just followed Whyld's lead and put 1936 in the table twice and put a – in the column that didn't apply. It seems OK. One of the problems with separate sections for men and women is that it can make some of the articles very long (vertically) if the championship has a lot of history. In at least some cases I think it really makes sense to put the men and the women in the same table. The Lebanese Chess Championship has the men and women play together, with the top scorer winning the men's (overall) championship and the top female scorer winning the women's championship. The U.S. Women's Open Chess Championship has usually been played that way as well. It may be that it should be merged with U.S. Open Chess Championship. (P.S. Voorlandt, thanks for fixing my typo/thinko in Lebanese Chess Championship.) Quale 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]