Talk:Tempo (chess)

old talk

i think "when taking one more move to achieve something than necessary" is badly worded. i propose "when taking one more move than necessary to achieve something". Dan, 12:09PM UTC 13 Sep 2005

C-class

I think this is a solid C-class article. The criteria for a C-class article are:

The article has a lot of good content and is not missing any key elements entirely.

I don't see any missing key elements.

However, it will most likely have multiple sections that are overly brief or incomplete,

I don't see any such sections, but even if there are, a C article can have that.

the prose may be unclear or poorly worded in places

Maybe, but even if there are, a C article can have that.

or the article may contain few or no references.

It does contain a few references.

The article may also have issues with original research or neutrality and balance.

No POV, balance, or Original Research issues, even though a C-class article may have them. Bubba73 (talk), 01:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit comment

I meant to leave an edit comment for the edit I just made: The kings added to the diagram are completely irrelevant to the topic of Tempo, and the comments added (as a result of the kings being added) are also completely superfluous. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded and reverted. I stumbled upon this as I noticed the IP's thread on WP:HELPDESK and their uncivil edit summary. They've also breached the 3RR, which is not cool. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of warning about three people for this edit war. A word of advice to all involved: Stop editing the contentious material, or you ALL risk a block. 3RR applies to EVERYONE. It takes two (or, in this case, more) to have an edit war. Don't war over it; have the discussion here. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the assertion that the kings, as irrelevant to a Rook's tempo move, are unnecessary on the first diagram, and are NOT "always" on a chess board regardless of circumstance. (Notice I'm not editing the page?) Jsharpminor (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the IP exactly once because their edit was clearly done for the wrong reasons. They had not discussed on the talk page, and their edit summary consisted of a personal attack and a misconception about 3RR which I contacted them about. So, what exactly makes me an edit warrior? 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care to get dragged into wikilawyering. It does not matter at all who is doing what; what matters is that it happened and that the proper procedure is to establish consensus before reverting good-faith edits. You may be interested to note that there have been instances where people have gotten blocks for a single edit since they were joining an edit war well in progress. However, it's not my objective to place blame or sift through the past until it becomes absolutely necessary (it doesn't appear to me that it is at this point). What's necessary is to work on establishing consensus regarding the issue at hand. I'm not accusing you of edit warring if you're not continuing to make reverts on contentious material. Let's get back to the subject at hand, please? ;-) The thing to do from here is to establish consensus on the issue and then create the page from that point forward. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing the edits involved in the war

It seems to me that the edit is half correct. First, there's no reason for the kings to be on the board in line 9; a simple demonstration of a tempo move (Rh8, Rh3) does not require it. I suggest that the kings be removed, as they are extraneous. The only counterargument is that kings are always on the board, which they are not. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, however, it seems that the deletion of the content describing the famous scenario on move 117, Timofeev vs. Inarkiev, Moscow, was deletion of good content that explained the situation right in the image caption. I suggest that this content should stay. Jsharpminor (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is not meant to show an actual position - it is to show the concept of Tempo. (The white dots are used for that). Adding the kings to make it an actual position is not a good idea because if that is meant to represent an actual position, the rook move makes no sense. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the caption after move 117 - that is discussed in the text. The edit was overly long for a caption, repeated too much of what the text said, and was partially wrong (i.e. it said that it pins the bishop - the bishop was already pinned). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, what we have here is:

Two or more editors (Bubba73 and Quale) who have had a consensus on the article since on or before 12 Dec 2010
An IP address editor (98.113.152.93) who keeps introducing material against consensus
Another editor (212.68.15.66) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and made another revert
A fourth editor (Jsharpminor) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and templated three people for excessive reversion and 3RR,
An article that now stands correct by consensus.

It seems that the obvious thing, then, is to leave the article the way it is. However, do take note that engaging someone in an edit war, even if consensus supports you, isn't the right way to handle it. (For clarity, the page was reverted six times between 5:32 11 Apr and 8:41 12 Apr.) You might want to see the pages on reverting and edit warring for suggestions, including a request for protection, and the edit war noticeboard. I'm posting a report of this to the noticeboard; I'm not sure what they'll decide to do with him.

Cheers!! Jsharpminor (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your synopsis is correct, except that the basic consensus goes back a lot earlier than December 2010. I don't remember any controversy in this article before. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. And by the way: don't expect similar disruption tomorrow. The user was blocked. All's well that ends well, right? Jsharpminor (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did an excellent job on the edit war noticeboard. It was all summarized and linked very nicely. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely made up?

If this isn't completely made up, then it's still only use in "gaining a tempo" or "losing a tempo"... because if it were the actual term for a move (and the actual term for a move in chess is... *move*), then it should be found on the page about Chess, right? --jae (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is totally legitimate, and it means more than just a move. Also see Glossary of chess#Tempo and the references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]