Talk:World Chess Championship/Archive 1

World Chess Championship/Archive 1
World Chess Championship/Archive 1
Full name	Wilhelm Steinitz
Country	1836-1888 : Austrian Empire; 1888-1900 : United States
World Champion
informal :	1866-1886
formal :	1886-1894

This is an archive of past discussions about World Chess Championship. 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 1

Archive 2

Pictures

How to do it? One thought is to place thumbnails throughout, but then it looks like this:

(removed now)

Suggestions?--Etaonish 18:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the pictures do dominate rather. I suppose that there are two obvious solutions (and probably a much better one that's not obvious): reduce the number of photos, or reduce the size of the thumbnails (I mean, those are pretty scary thumbs...). Of the two, the latter would presumably be less painful. You must have thought of this, and have decided against it; why? What am I missing? I don't know anything about the mechanics of Wikipedia thumbnails; how easy is it to change their size? Mel Etitis 19:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- Strangely, these *are* thumbnails already. I'm not sure how to make thumbnails smaller either. I believe I saw it somewhere on Wiki but I can't find that part of the site anymore.--Etaonish 23:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - ~~Never mind, I found it.--Etaonish 00:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)~~

Finally fixed up everything. I might do women's later.--Etaonish 01:38, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

"Greatest of all time"

Short version: I don't think the "greatest of all time" section should be in this article. Lets split it off to something like greatest chess player of all time. Objections?

Longer version: The question of who was the greatest player (or "strongest player", which may or may not be a different thing) of all time is often discussed; it's something many chess players and fans have ideas about, and, as such, it's probably a subject which is worth us tackling. I don't think we can actually answer the question "who is the greatest player of all time" and be neutral about it (for this reason, I don't like the list currently in the article: such lists will always just be a matter of opinion and it's wrong of us to push one particular list forward), but I do think we can talk about others' efforts to answer the question, and about what sort of things one might consider when trying to answer it.

So I think it's something we can write about. What I don't understand is why we're writing about it in an article on the world chess championship. I don't think there's really much of a relationship between the subjects. Of course, many of the candidates for "greatest ever" will have also been champions, but there's no reason to believe that the greatest ever must have been a champion. We even say ourselves in the first paragraph of the article that the champion is not necessarily the "highest-rated" (one measure of "strongest") in the world.

So I do think this is a subject we can talk about, but I don't think this article is the place to do it. I propose, therefore, that we move it to a new article called greatest chess player of all time or similar. Then we can give the subject the proper treatment it deserves, not limiting ourselves to just a handful of players, and bringing in outside sources like Keene and Divinsky's (rather dopey, but relevant) book, Warriors of the Mind, which ranks players through the ages in order (it's not sensible to mention the book in this article, since it considers players who were never champion). Objections? --Camembert 00:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a couple of months later, and no objections are forthcoming, so I'm going to move that section of the article out to greatest chess player of all time and edit it somewhat. --Camembert 16:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Women's World Chess Championship

This page is getting too long. I propose creating a separate page, Women's World Chess Championship. Rocksong 01:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rocksong 03:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is still an external link to 'dozens of positions from Women's WCC games (the wtharvey one). Shouldn't that be relocated? Marvol 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Situation

I've added a "current situation" section. There (if I get time) I will summarise the current situation with the 2005 world cup and the recently announced 8 player World Championship in Mexico. Perhaps this needs a separate article, e.g. "World Championship 2007 Cycle", but with the title still split this gets a bit problematic. I'm open to suggestions on how best to do this. Rocksong 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think you're getting carried away with the deal here. You removed large chunks of the text, including important citations, split the article into I don't know how many pieces, got all the priorities badly (the article is about the championship not the whole cyle!) by cutting out such an event as San Luis (which was a revolution in the FIDE championships) and including some two paragraphs on unimportant information about qualifying into the 2007 tournament. As I said, this page is about the championship, and should keep the spirit of pre-1993 championships by focusing entirely on the championship match / tournament. As in the tournament after Alhekine's deaths, there is no need to dedicate more than a sentence, maybe two, to say how players qualified. Each cycle has somewhat different rules, especially with an organization behind it who would trive to keep the fairest situation in place (or indeed favor a nation), politics and keeping the game interesting.

This is a featured article and such changes are too big to be done on personal initiative. Wiki is about building something right as a community, not articles made personal. Citing WP:BOLD - don't be reckless!: "... making large-scale changes to Featured articles, which are recognized as Wikipedia's best articles for their completeness, accuracy, and neutrality, is often a bad idea."

I think the best thing to do with you is leave you get off this editing spree of yours and stick the pieces back in place when you're done. Something good enough should surface out of all this. But make sure you detail your edit summaries. "Tidying up" is not the correct term for deleting a whole section!

_└^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 12:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I was cleaning up an article which was messy. Wikipedia also says to be bold in doing changes! First, the introduction. Wikipedia guidelines are that the introduction should be brief, 2 or 3 paragraphs at most. So I trimmed it, especially when it contained detail which was deeper in the article anyway. Second, yes I removed 2 citations, but they were redundant - one of them was even in Russian! The chessbase citation covered it all. Third, there is already a detailed article on the San Luis tournament, so the detail you put in (like Topalov's score) does not belong in the main article. Fourth, the women's championship clearly reads like a separate article, and I have no regrets about moving it. In fact a split was suggested more than 2 years ago. Fifth, I think the "Chaos 1993-" section deserved to be split because it was getting too long. I think a "Current Situation" heading is useful.

To summarise, I don't regret any of those changes, and I contend that all 5 changes improved the article.

Also, I'm going to have to undo your last change, because a lot of women chessplayers' pages point to that section and it will take a few days to change them all. So as a temporary measure, the Women's championship section will need to stay.

There is one critcism I partly agree with: I agree that the details on the 2007 cycle look a bit out of place, but I think they deserve to be somewhere and don't know where else. But I'll shorten it (remove all the "dot" points) and leave in the citations. Rocksong 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Streamline the modern section

The article moves at a good pace, but once we get past 1993 it bogs down in too many details, IMHO. Here are some thoughts on streamlining it: The Prague Agreement was a hot topic when the article was first written, but it is now just a footnote in the history of the world championship. I think it occupies far too much space in the article. I propose removing most of it to a separate article Prague Agreement. In fact the article has too much on recent stuff in general. There are already separate pages for FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 and FIDE World Chess Championship 2005. Probably the same could be done for other recent events, allowing the "Chaos" section to be streamlined (i.e. shortened) considerably. (But since my last big edit caused some angst, I'll pause and wait at least a few days for any feedback). Rocksong 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a good idea. --Ioannes Pragensis 13:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, a bit more than one day later (but I wasn't a member of Wikipedia back then :P), but I wholeheartedly agree with these proposed changes. All these details about Kasparov playing Ponomariov, no, playing Kasimdzanov, no, not playing at all... these are minor footnotes. They are interesting however IMO for a separate (future?) article on the schism and reunification in the chess world.

There are more things I don't particularly like when reading this article; at times it seems to cut corners (to the point of being sunjective) as in the remarks about the style of play of Lasker "He did not play the best move, but..." - I doubt somebody can be WCC for 27 years without at least sometimes playing the best move - or about Capablanca 'Capablanca was the last and greatest of the "natural" players: he prepared little for his games, but won them brilliantly. He possessed an astonishing insight into positions simply by glancing at them.'

Who are these famed "natural" players?
Did he really prepare little for his games? His biography states that he got a job at the Cuban Foreign Office where he had to do little else but play chess.
He 'won his games brilliantly' is about as subjective as it can get.
What is the evidence for his 'astonishing' insight into positions 'simply by glancing at them'? I think every great chessplayer has this ability. See every big simultaneous exhibition.

I would actually prefer to see these descriptions removed altogether - they anyway belong at the players' bios pages, if at all anywhere. It is inconsistent that later great champions like Smyslov, Petrosian and Spassky get no mention whatsover about what styles they played or what Great Gifts they possessed, contributing more to the imbalance in this article.

If I could get some feedback on this I would be grateful, and I might try my hand at my first wiki'ing of Wikipedia. Marvol 17:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What I think happened is that this article began as an overview essay, with lots of colourful description, and often not much detail. This part - up to 1993 - seems to be largely untouched in later edits. My opinion is that, as Wikipedia has evolved into quite a decent resource, that this earlier section needs to be edited to be more "encyclopedic": more detail, less POV language. So yes, I would welcome the edits you suggest. As for the clutter of information on later matches - I've created a page on the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik match (and added a link today), and plan pages on the other matches in this period. As indicated back in May, I also planned a page on Prague Agreement, but have been kinda busy since then. Rocksong 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK the idea for separate pages on the other matches sounds good. On the other hand, a more detailed overview of what happened during the 'chaos' period might be a good idea... that is where all the little stuff that is now cluttering up the last bit can just move to. I will try to find some time to make some edits, viz, removing the POV (had to look that one up ;-) ) but also adding extra info about the post-WWII champions. For instance, don't you think it should be mentioned that the Soviets dominated that area (briefly interrupted by Fischer)? Also a more neutral description of each champion's style would be nice. There is an interview with Kramnik that I think is highly interesting and relevant in that matter. Marvol 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Chessworld.net World champions page

Hi there

The Chessworld.net world champions page at:-

http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/statistics_pgn_worldchamps.asp

Not only has high quality articles on the left in plain html, but also dynamically generated database pages for the Games links - which also link to virtual player homepages detailing interesting player statistics.

The Chessworld.net database has 1.6 million games and runs on its own seperate server. It has the community backing of hundreds of annotators and several dedicated moderators. Games are being annotated each day. The Chessworld.net community has thousands of members and is one of the largest online chess communities on the Internet.

On the particular World champions page, there is also high quality content articles such as the article on Steinitz. I have personally spent many weeks researching this, and putting in key quality games to demonstrate player career achievements. Also there are even some annotated games with diagrams.

Please can the World champion summary page be reinstated.

Best wishes Tryfon Gavriel Fide 2165

My reasons for the removal were:

The link leads to a mere collection of links to pages about the champs - nothing special about the World Chess Championship as a whole, I think. (I do not judge eg. the mentioned Chessworld.net material about Steinitz, but if it should be linked from Wikipedia, it should be linked from the article about Steinitz, not from here.)
Tryfon Gavriel and other, who add links to Chessworld.net to many Wikipedia articles in recent time, violate WP:EL, because they are admins of the site.

Because of 3RR, I will not revert the link now, but let others think about its appropriatenes.--Ioannes Pragensis 17:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link because it has been spammed by several accounts/IPs. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion, and the link does not provide a unique resource as required by Wikipedia:External links. ―Wmahan . 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

World Champions According to Number of World Title Reigns

This was added by an anonymous user on 14-Oct-2006. I propose deleting it. I don't think it adds anything to the article, and it places the champions in a subjective order in a way books on the subject don't usually do. (IOW, it looks like Original Research). An argument could be made for moving it in the Greatest chess player of all time article, however. Rocksong 04:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 24.241.226.16 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing it for the reasons above. Rocksong 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an interesting table. It certainly isn't OR as it is entirely verifiable (restructuring verifiable data is not OR). Anyway, I can't be bothered with an argument so I have put it in Greatest chess player of all time as suggested. BlueValour 03:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I quickly tire or arguments too. It's not so much the WP:OR angle; it's more that it clutters the article (which is already fairly long), and adds a subjective element. As it stands (with the table removed), the article describes the history of the world championship and makes no effort to rank the different champions. That's how I think it should stay. Rocksong 03:32,

17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this table is very good especially in sports which had different organisations and multiple world title reigns.it clarifies any confusion about champions .This idea exists in some other sports in wikipedia [3],there helped me to understand champions status in wrestling in a simple way without drowninng in pages in confusion also one know different organisations and who got higher number of titles and most years (people like that) .this table is very objective and says for example that a champion like lasker which got seven titles and 27 years as champion is more valuable than a guy got the title in a knock-out event for one year . Kramnik after beating Topalov said "Now i am 3 times World Champion" this table illustrates this concept .thus, i strongly recommend it stays in World Chess Championship --Sonbirdo 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, not sure pro wrestling is a good example, but anyway... The information can be gleaned from reading the length of each champion's reign. I'd have less problem if the arrangement was chronological, or even better, being an additional column(s) (number of title defences) on the existing chronological tables of champions; though it gets a bit messy with the title splitting. Rocksong 07:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: make the 4th column read "Championship matches", with one championship match (or tournament) per row. That takes a little work (multi-row table cells), but is not hard in principle. I'll have a go at it if I get the time. Rocksong 07:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

moving it in the Greatest chess player of all time article, is also not good solution .we talk about champions not greatest players ,i think champions like kasimdzhanov or khalifman not considered by many as one of the greatest so,i think World Chess Championship is the right place.Concerning the column u suggested it will be some confusion especially about knock-out events ,should we consider knock-out final as a match ,a player like Anand played long matches and knock-out final ,the number will be debated.years of reign is better than championship matches.anyway,thx Rocksong for discussion. --Sonbirdo 08:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm for moving it back (length of article is not a problem; it is within the recommended length) so that makes it 2-2; I guess we need a casting vote from someone! :-) BlueValour 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots cut from post-1993

As foreshadowed some time ago, I've cut a lot from the post-1993 section, which had grown too much. I've tried to improve the flow so it's more or less one paragraph per championship. Note a lot of the details are duplicated in championship pages, such as FIDE World Chess Championship 2004 in particular. Rocksong 00:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I still think it's too long, when compared to the rest of the article. But it's a start. Rocksong 00:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Undisputed" ?

I would dispute that Kramnik is the current World Champion. The computer program Deep Fritz is the better player as has been proven by trial. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 13:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase what I've already said at Talk:Vladimir Kramnik. Wikipedia does not engage in WP:Original Research. Instead we reflect the consensus view of WP:Reliable Sources. Check any reliable source (googling "world chess champion" is a good start), and you will see that Kramnik, not a computer, is the world chess champion. Peter Ballard 03:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratings list

This section seems very much out of place and, indeed, could well be added to the main Chess article and merged with the info already there. I suggest removing it. BlueValour 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I created the section because I thought it was preferable to having a mention of ratings in the lead. I'd be happy to delete the section now. Peter Ballard 00:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Real World Champion

This article ignores the fact that a significant number of chess fans around the world do not count Anand as having won the classical world championship. Chess history has demonstrably shown that the FIDE title is considerably weaker than the true classical match title, and Anand has certainly never won the classical match title. This can only happen next year when Anand is the challenger in the match against World Champion Kramnik.

It is also sad to see this article lending weight to Khalifman, Ponomariov, Kasimjanov, and Topalov as 'world champions', when the bulk of chess fans do not consider them as such. If you call them champions then why not also list the other FIDE 'champions' from Alekhine's time? History has forgotten them - even the FIDE site doesn't list them. History will do the same with the rest of the FIDE 'champions'.

Ted Cross169.252.4.21 13:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is not written to please any "chess fans around the world" you are referring to. It is an encyclopedic article and not a blog. What "bulk of chess fans" think or do not think, doesnot matter to this article. What matters is, neutral information from reliable sources. Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 15:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Anand has never been World Champion. This article contains false information. Considering Anand won FIDE's title in a TOURNAMENT automatically negates the possibility of it being the (classical) World Championship, which is MATCH PLAY. Period. The article as it stands is incorrect. Anand will be playing a match for the (classical) World Championship against the current holder, Kramnik. Kramnik lost FIDE's title in this tournament, but the classical title is the match title, which cannot be lost in a tournament, by its very nature. To list Anand as undisputed World Champion is beyond ludicrous: he won a tournament title, not the match title that is the Classical World Championship. No. Match. Was. Played.Smyslov 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep original research away from Wikipedia. If you have a reliable source which says, "Anand has never been World Champion", please produce that. If you believe this article contains false information, please list them in an objective manner, and provide reasoning supported with sources. For your information, official website of 2007 World Chess Championship says, Vishwanathan Anand is the World Champion. Hope that helps, - KNM ^Talk 22:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that does not help. And I'm not conducting original research, since what I'm talking about dates to at least the 1880s. You cite FIDE'S WEBSITE. They always claim the winners of their tournaments are world champions. Should I cite the website of the World Open tournament where they claimed the winner of that was world champion as well? Is that valid? In any case, the source you cite is irrelevant, as it covers the winner of a TOURNAMENT, whereas the chess World Champion wins that title in a MATCH. No match was played, and your counterargument does not even touch on this fact. Smyslov 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What FIDE says is only partly relevant. FIDE also declared Khalifman etc champion while there was a rival Classical championship. But back then, there were many WP:Reliable Sources - chess grandmasters and commentators - backing the Classical Championship. The difference this time is that there are few or no reliable sources saying Anand is not champion. (And the reason for this, in turn, is that Kramnik himself acknowledges that Mexico City was a world championship - see World Chess Championship 2007). Yes I know there is a lot of debate about this on discussion boards, but as WP:Reliable Sources, discussion boards don't count. The only RS I've been able to find has been an annoying brief comment in this USCF article http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7916/141/ by GM Ian Rogers. I added it to World Chess Championship 2007 but then later deleted it because I decided it was giving WP:Undue Weight to a minority opinion, though I'm open to being persuaded to re-insert it. Peter Ballard 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to "attention turned to the prospect of an Anand-Kramnik match for the Classical (Match) World Championship, which many believe Kramnik did not forfeit even though he failed to win in Mexico. (Gelfand disagreed - "Anand is clear World Champion and he clearly deserved it.")". Had Rogers named the 'many' then mention could be made but this is altogether too vague. We shouldn't be afraid of including minority viewpoints but they do need reliable sourcing and none have been produced. BlueValour 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is another Ian Rogers article which alludes to disquiet over the title. http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8044/365 Although Rogers calls Anand "undisputed world champion", he says (at the end) that Kramnik is still "classical champion", and "A win by Anand in a head-to-head match over the classical champion, Kramnik, will confirm Anand’s place in the history books as the undisputed 15th classical world champion." I disagree with Rogers here, but it indicates the situation is still murky, at least in some peoples' eyes, until Anand and Kramnik play a match next year. So a brief mention of this controversy may be appropriate after all. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine provided that we source it as Rogers' personal view. I don't think that we should include his view that many others share this opinion as it is too indirect and 'unsourced'! BlueValour (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, that's certainly undue to this article, as it is just a personal view of Rogers. If at all it needs a placement, then it goes to Rogers' wiki article. - KNM ^Talk 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points. First, Rogers is a respected chess journalist, writing on the USCF web site. Second, the allegation was substantial enough for Rogers to get a comment from Boris Gelfand on it. (See here: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7916/141/ ). Simply putting it in the Rogers article is insufficient, IMHO. The dissenting opinions are out there; it's just a question of how much weight to give to them. Hopefully we can find a second WP:Reliable Source, and then write it up in a WP:NPOV way. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's two more sources mentioning dissent. The first, http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic673.html , merely predicts it, while in the second http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/Topalov_Kramnik.html , Jeremy Silman says he doesn't think Anand can "fully" claim to be champion but thinks (incorrectly it seems) he's a "lone voice in the wilderness". So I think something should be added. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that Anand is not really a champion in a way the title is understood historically is shared by many people. It is not a marginal minority, it is a very significant one - if it is a minority at all. To list Anand's title as "undisputed" is ludicrous, in at least one of the recent interviews even Kramnik himself disputed the relevance of the title Anand has. As it stands now, the article provides false information. I will leave it to more experienced Wikipedia users to sort this out. NAL1979 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

On a second thought, I've added a paragraph on the current WC countroversy myself. Feel free to comment or correct. Thanks. NAL1979 (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov's nationality

To the person who keeps insisting that Garry Kasparov's nationality is Armenian:

1. He is Russian now.

2. When the Soviet Union split, he identified as Russian. At the 1992 Olympaid he played for Russia, not Armenia. I think he also played under the Russian flag in his 1990 World Championship match.

3. His race is irrelevant. What matters is his nationality, not his race.

4. He wasn't even born in Armenia, he was born in Azerbaijan.

Please give evidence that he should be considered an Armenian national (as opposed to being of Armenian decent), or stop doing these edits please. Peter Ballard 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed France from Spassky and Iceland from Fischer, as it's rather misleading: they became citizens of those countries decades after they were actually World Champion. I think there's a case for removing all the flags from the article as per WP:FLAG: they don't really add anything and just seem to cause trouble, as shown above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think the flags detract. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the flags, but it isn't that important to me. we will always get silly vandals here, and the Kasparov Armenia thing is only one of them. We had fairly persistent Indian vandals who kept changing articles to indicate that Anand was World Champ over a year before he actually won the title. I have no idea what was up with that. Removing the flags might decrease the vandalism a little, but I'm sure it would still happen. Quale (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Kasparov played for Armenia in the RoW vs Armenia match 2004, and Vallejo-Pons vs Kasparov from that match is currently regarded as the definitive theory in the Najdorf Sicilian Poisoned Pawn variation (see First-move advantage in chess. At Armenian Diaspora Forum Kasparov does his best to clear up the confused question of his nationality ("Yes I am born in Baku and I am half Armenian-half Jewish but my native tongue is Russian, my culture is Russian, my education is Russian.") To make matters worse, in at least one of his many volumes of memoirs Kasparov expresses his gratitude for the support given by Soviet Azerbaijan's boss Heydar Aliyev in the early 1980s, when Soviet chess officials were trying to prevent Kasparov from challenging for Karpov's title. So whatever the current legal situation Kasparov regards himself as having multiple nationality, and aligns himself with different nationalities in different situations. The only sensible course is to allude briefly to this in the text (e.g. "legally Russian, but has ties to other nationalities") and quote the forum piece in a footnote.

I hereby propose a new(?) addendum to Murphy's Law, to be named "Kasparov's Misrule": anything to do with Garry Kasparov is always more complicated than anyone imagines. Philcha (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, I just saw Philcha's reply). I wouldn't put much store in the Armenia / Rest of the World match, they just put in players with a connection to Armenia, presumably to make it fairly even. IM Malcolm Pein wrote in the The Week in Chess: "The Armenian team will consist of three Armenians; Vladimir Akopian, Smbat Lputian and Rafael Vaganian and three players with Armenian connections; Garry Kasparov whose mother is Armenian and world title challenger Peter Leko whose wife is Armenian. Mrs Leko's family name is Petrosian and her father Arshak is a GM but they are not related to Tigran Petrosian. Boris Gelfand makes up the numbers for the Armenian team. I was baffled as to what Armenian connection Gelfand could have, as he is a Jew who now lives in Israel but he explained that he was the most famous pupil to study under Tigran Petrosian."[4] In other words, nothing there to dispute that Kasparov's nationality is Russian, unless we want to say that Leko and Gelfand are Armenian too. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Articles on championship matches" section

With the in-article links to individual matches, and especially with the Template down the bottom, this section seemed redundant, and a waste of space in what is already a fairly long article. So I deleted it. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The "See also" section is pretty long too, actually-- few of the articles have much to do with the World Championship.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And those that are, are covered in Category:Chess world championships. So I think that section could well be deleted too, but I'll wait for feedback. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FIDE

The article does not do justice to the confused origins of the title - see the section of Wilhelm Steinitz about dating the start of his reign. I think a large part of the problem is World Chess Championship's attempt to distinguish between "unofficial" and "official" champions:

Steinitz straddles that extremely vague boundary.
Use of the term "official" pre-1948 suggests there was some title-awarding/-recognizing body, but the first tentative sign of that was in FIDE's formative years, in the mid-1920s. Even then FIDE's role was virtually non-existent; the first "constitution" for the Championship was the "London Rules", virtually dictated by Capablanca. Logic suggests all that makes Lasker an "unofficial" champion, although everyone knew he was the boss.
The Kasparov affair shows that official recognition is pretty impotent (impotent, not important) - everyone except FIDE knew who was the real champion 1993-2000.

I think a better set of headings would be:

Informal uses of the title "World champion"
Transition to a universally-recognized champion (would cover the arguments about the start of Steinitz' reign).
Pre-FIDE generally-recognized champions.
FIDE's attempts take control of the title (and the "FIDE World Champions" of the 1930s).
The Interregnum and the 1848 tournament
FIDE champions.
The split in the world title.
Re-unification. Philcha (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found documents that say the American Chess Congress began in 1888 an attempt to regulate the future conduct of world championship contests, which Steinitz supported: Thulin, A. (August 2007). "Steinitz—Chigorin, Havana 1899 - A World Championship Match or Not?" (PDF). This proposal evolved through many forms (as Steinitz pointed out, such a project had never been undertaken before), and resulted in the New York 1889 "candidates tournament". There's enough material here for a whole new section. To prevent the page from becoming too long I suggest shortening as much as possible the accounts of champions who were not involved in any controversy over the process - the article wouold still need to comment on Steinitz, Lasker (ducked Capa for a long time; may have ducked Rubinstein), Capa (the "London Rules"), Alekhine (in addition to the Inter-regnum, his relative weakness created a power vacuum in the late 1930s), Botvinnik (parallell suggestion of a system similar to FIDE's; the "Botvinnik rule" on re-matches), Fischer, Kasparov and the whole split title period. Then the FIDE aricle will needed to be edited to match (e.g. the early 1920's proposals were not the first). Philcha (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't misread the cited paper: NY 1889 was not a 'candidates tournament' even if some people assumed it was. Steinitz seems very clear that the winner would be World Champion, and that he wouldn't even challenge the winner (except perhaps if noone else of the participants did so). This is a rather odd corner of chess history.Athulin (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, are you that A. Thulin? I agree that NY 1889 was not originally intended to be a candidates tournament, but there seems little doubt that it eventually functioned as one (apart from the Chigorin-Weiss business) - unless you are saying that Gunsberg became the champion and Steinitz the challenger, or that the title became vacant between NY 1889 and the Steintz-Gunsberg match? If you can clarify this, it would be much appreciated since it would benefit at least World Chess Championship and Wilhelm Steinitz, and probably Mikhail Chigorin, Max Weiss and Isidore Gunsberg as well. Philcha (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it wasn't intended to be one, yet several writers assumed that it was -- that the winner would become the challenger for the WCh, contrary to the stated programme and Steinitz own declarations as cited in the paper. That's one side of the thing -- that kind of 'candidates tournament' is a misunderstanding. On the other hand, the top participants got a boost from it, and the pecking order became a bit clearer as to who were next in line to the WCh -- that's another side of it. Neither is quite the same as a FIDE candidates tournament. I'm simply concerned that readers will make the wrong mental connection, and assume it was something else than it was.

As to the state of the WCh after NY1889 ... well, the table was set for the possibility of co-championship, and I sometimes think it would have been the right way to go in this particular case. But as the organizers admitted to failure on this particular issue, I see no very strong reason for disputing that the title went back to Steinitz. The only players who had a reasonable claim on the title would be Weiss and Chigorin. But as it was the purpose of the championship match to establish the new WCh, and as that match was not held, such claims surely lapsed when the congress finished. After that, it was business as usual.Athulin (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Athulin, Many thanks for drawing my attention to this.

I've revised the relevant paragraph of World_Chess_Championship#The_reign_of_Wilhelm_Steinitz_2, although I've omitted the minor "just in case" provisions about challengers. I'd be grateful if you could check out the revised version. If it's OK, I will also update the corresponding part of Wilhelm Steinitz. Philcha (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me.Athulin (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Before the 1851 London tournament 2 commentator explicitly said the winner should be regarded as "the World’s Chess Champion"; and in the mid-1840s Ludwig Bledow proposed a tournament for the same purpose - see Spinrad, J.P. (2006). "Early World Rankings" (PDF). chesscafe.com. World Chess Championship really does need a rewrite. Philcha (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue with your central point here; clearly a lot has been written about those early 'world champions' and there are various discussions on the context and validity of unofficial, official or even 'universally recognised' titles, so it therefore does no harm to improve the content of the article, if we feel it provides a better understanding of this transition period. I see this more as an expansion, rather than a re-write, the latter suggesting that the current version is incorrect in some way. Prior to FIDE taking control of the competition, the title was ipso facto the personal property of the holder and again, I would agree that the terms "official/unofficial" give rise to a mistaken belief that the title was endorsed by some organisation - the dictionary definition implies properly authorized. Consequently, a change in the various headings to move away from this notion is probably okay as a shift in emphasis, or to help avert misunderstanding. If, on the other hand, we are talking about writing the body text to give a more 'modern interpretation' of these titles, then there is a danger that we stray into original research. Historical accounts do, whether we like it or not, report the titles in terms of 'official' or 'unofficial'. That said, I havn't read the Kasparov books, so if he, or others, have a more modern interpretation, then I'd certainly support a clearer, less ambiguous description throughout. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that "historical accounts" report the titles in terms of "official" or "unofficial". BCM (1894) and Lasker (1908) say Steinitz' reign started 1866 ; NY Times 1894 got its arithmetic wrong and said "for 26 years" but it's obvious what they meant (or perhaps Lasker first challenged in 1892 and they used that as a base, then sub-edited that out to fit the article in the available space; either way they meant for a lot longer than the 8 years 1886 - 1894). These 3 sources regarded Steinitz as champion since he beat Anderssen in 1866, despite the absence of "world championship" or similar worlds in the contract for the 1866 match. IMO the most reasonable response to these facts is that the situation was unclear for a long time (late 1870s and early 1880s). Lasker, BCM and NY Times apparently thought the 1886 Zukertort match retrospectively confirmed that Steinitz was champion from 1886. Fine in "World's Great Chess Games" apparently follows their example. If anything is "revisionist" it is later accounts that insist on 1886.

The "official / unofficial" distinction is meaningless: (a) anyone can set up a "governing body", look at Kasparov 1993-2000 and the state of boxing; (b) if the sanction of a governing body is required, Botvinnik was the first official champion(!!!); (c) if the existence of agreed rules is the criterion, Alekhine is the first, as he beat Capa under the "London Rules" while Capa beat Em. Lasker under no pre-defined rules; (d) wait a minute, perhaps Steinitz is the last legitimate champion (!!!!!), as he defended against Gunsberg (1890) under the American Chess Congress' rules of 1888-89 while Steinitz-Lasker 1894 was merely a privately-arranged match between 2 people who happened to be great players.

I admit that simply writing this analysis into the article would be WP:OR, but I see no obligation to give prominence to writings that violate all facts and logic, no matter how prestigious their sources might be; Wikipedia routinely omits e.g. creationist arguments in article about evolution, even if these arguments are advanced by scientists who are also creationists. To look at it another way, FIDE recognised Khalifman and Ponomariov as world champions, and most commentators laughed (and most of the rest wept). The current article is guilty of undue weight in giving pre-eminence to the views of FIDE and its supporters, as they are not disinterested commentators and appear to have been in a minority for most of 1993 to the present. Philcha (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, my term 'historical accounts' was misleading - I actually meant the more popular accounts written in books of thirty/forty years ago. It's undoubtedly a fertile area for discussion. I do support your aims, but it would be hugely beneficial to have a writer of 'Darwinian' proportions backing you up. What of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors Vol. 1? Does he have a modern perspective on all this? Anyone? Brittle heaven (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Em. Lasker was too brief to qualify as "Darwinian" :-) Philcha (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Edward Bird's long, rambling Chess History and Reminiscences retrospectively awards Howard Staunton the title of "the admitted world's champion in chess, until the title was wrested from him by Professor Anderssen in ...1851." (I'll find a date for Bird's reminiscences one of these years) Philcha (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that official/nonofficial is a bad distinction. It's not WP:OR to speak of difficulties in dating Steinitz's reign as Edward Winter (cited above) has written about it. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The next question is what we put in place of "official / unofficial". I don't think "undisputed" would help: the title was disputed after 1993 but everyone knew Kasparov was easily the top player; and if we found clear evdence that everyone was happy for Steinitz to be called "World Champion" at some time between 1866 and the late 1870s we have an undiputed championship for that period and then a period where the title was disputed until Steinitz beat Zukertort in 1886.

I suggest "formal / informal", as the 1886 match was the first contest that was explicitly for the world championship and, except possibly for 1889, there's been little doubt since about the intended championship status of contests, even if the title was disputed. "Informal" can cover both contemporary and retrospective acclamations of champions. Philcha (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "undisputed" is OK for 1886-1946 (and indeed all the way up to 1993), the title was indeed undisputed in that time. formal/informal has similar problems to official/unofficial. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's very tricky to find a label. "undisputed" suggests a contrast between "disputed" and "undisputed", and fortunately disputes have been rare in chess: I can only think of 1993-2006 and Steinitz/Zukertort from the late 1870s to 1886; OTOH in the late 1870s some sources say that Steinitz effectively forfeited his claim to the title during his long absence from competitive chess (1876-1882), which implies that they regarded him as undisputed champion before that.

"formal/informal" is meant to flag where a particular contest was defined in advance as being for the world championship, but avoiding the issues of legitimacy that undermine "official/unofficial". If anyone can think of an alternative for distinguishing between pre- and post-1886 that is clearer and carries no complicated baggage, please suggest it as soon as possible. If a suggestion is not presented within a few days, I'll edit World Chess Championship to show how the concept evolved. If a good suggestion appears after that, I'll retrofit it, unless someone else gets there first :-) Philcha (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re "undisputed", I've found that the tortuous process leading leading to the 1921 Emanuel Lasker-Capablanca match produced an ugly situation - including a possible predecessor to the 1946-48 Interregnum of World Chess Champions. Philcha (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there was no rival championship, and it was quickly resolved. In that way it was similar to to 1946-48 (and 1974-5, and even 1984-5). I think "undisputed" is an OK tag for all the time from 1886-1993. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that in 1920-21 the players agreed and disputes were between the commentators, and the rival candidates were Lasker, Capa and interregnum. However I'll make sure the detals are exactly right when I edit that part. Philcha (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Snippets

Paul Morphy NY Times September 3, 1899
[5] exchange of letters critical of FIDE's "world-championship-lite" ideas; Parr suggests it's an attempt by bureaucrats to prevent champs from becoming powerful - guess who?
Soviet collusion 1930 - CN 4950, "Capablanca and Stalin"; stopped by Stalin! Original at NY Times Philcha (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Financing of world championship contests

I've added a section on this, as it's been the root of many difficulties. I'm fairly happy up to 1946-1948 - basically it was like boxing. Does anyone know of good material on:

How the 1948 World Championship Tournament was financed.
How the 1975 Fischer-Karpov match was to be financed? (I expect there will be tons on Fisher-Spassky 1972).
Any of the matches after that?
Especially the details of the deal that Kasparov and Short rejected and of the one they accepted in 1993.
And FIDE's recent championship tournaments. Philcha (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to work it into the body of the article. Having a separate section reads strange. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

After my last post (22:05, 7 June 2008) it occurred to me that it might be best to leave financing from 1948 onwards until later, and possibly split it if the arrangements were too diverse for one section. If the financing of a match was peculiar to that match, it should be covered with that match.

I think it's advantageous to explain up-front the general principles of world championship financing, as: the same principles applied to all championship matches up to World War II; the world worked very differently then - essentially chess match funding up to WW II was a form of gambling, a hugely scaled up version of the early 19th century small-stakes games in clubs (see Bird's Reminscences); AFAIK under the FIDE regime it was a mix of tax-funded and commercial sponsorship; while in the Kasparov-Kramnik lineage AFAIK it was pure commercial sponsorship).

Eventually it might be useful to move the current "financing" section to just above the Lasker section, because it was in his reign that stakes became a barrier; they were also a barrier in Capa's and Alekhine's reigns. It may also be useful to re-title the "finances" section, but I'd leave that until its place in the structure is settled. Philcha (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is useful to explain finances up-front. Finances are (I would argue) a peripheral issue not of major interest to most readers, who are more interested in the chess, the matches and the personalities. Much better to talk about it as we talk about negotiations for matches. p.s. I don't want to criticize the excellent work you're putting in, just provide some feedback and input when I find the time. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way I can think to decide what is of "major interest to most readers" would be a poll. I think that would be a useful idea if it could be organised, as editors generally have to rely on their own best guesses. The biggest problem would be defining and then obtaining a "representive" sample, as I suspect that editors of chess articles are untypical. If you or anyone else can find a way round that, or can suggest a good alternative way to discover what of major interest to most readers, I'd support a proposal to carry it out.

Re the personalities, I think the evidence indicates that financial considerations were at the root of several well known conflicts. And unfortunately urban myths abound concerning chess masters' personalities and relationships, so it's entirely in the spirit of Wikipedia to emphasise points that are relevant and verifiable. Philcha (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think it is a good principle of writing (Wikipedia and otherwise) that subjects should be gradually introduced. Having "finances" up front is just way too abrupt for my liking - names and dates are mentioned before they've been explained and given context. Working them into the negotiations for each match (where appropriate) seems much more natural to me. Still, I'd like to hear other opinions... Peter Ballard (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A general rule is to look at what the sources we are using have done. If our sources have a chapter or section in which they combine financing information on all chess matches together, then we should consider doing that ourselves. My guess is that our sources do not do that, and that instead of treating financing of World Championship matches as a topic of study in itself the particulars of the financing for each match are detailed when discussing the match itself. If the sources do not consider match financing an individual topic of study, then we shouldn't present it that way (no original research and synthesis). It's hard for me to see what common factors we can draw between the prize requirements of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine (these are closely related to each other), and Kasparov's decision to break from FIDE over 50 years later (at least in part over money). Basically financing of chess WC matches has always been difficult and contentious, but I've never seen a discussion of that in isolation from the matches and the period involved. I agree that financing is important, but I think it needs to be discussed in context rather than in isolation. Quale (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Kasparov's break-away in 1993 was related to the the prize requirements of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine. But AFAIK Kasparov's break-away was motivated partly by money as well as by distrust of FIDE and especially Campomanes after the termination of Karpov-Kasparov 1984.

Re financing of championship contests up to 1945, the sources (especially Bird, seconded by Lasker) support the following themes without any element of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH: it evolved out of low-stakes games in clubs; there was significant stakes inflation from 1843 onwards (2nd Staunton vs St-Amaint match); this became a barrier to challengers; but the players themselves did not do particularly well out of this. Before I started work on this article I had only a vague awareness of the stakes issue, despite having been an avid reader for chess books for many years. I expect it will be unfamiliar to non-specialist readers and therefore think an explanation is needed. I've tried to keep it brief and simple, for example I omitted Bird's much more detailed account of stakes inflation and relied on the contrast between £100 a side (1843 and 1866) and £400 a side (1886) to make that point. Philcha (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of World Chess Championship

Sorry if this appears rather brief - a power blip 10 minutes ago made my computer reboot when I'd almost finished a fuller version.

Until I started researching for various bios of top players, I did not realise how long and complex the evolution of the World Chess Championship was, and no Wikipedia article did justice to it. I stated over 2 weeks ago on this Talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#World_Chess_Championship_-_more_sources.3B_.22official_.2F_unofficial.22_is_broken that IMO the "official" / "unofficial" distinction is supported by neither historical facts nor any reasoning that I've seen, and that I would start editing World Chess Championship accordingly in 2 weeks if there were no serious objections. No-one raised any serious objections. It would be common courtesy to let me finish what I have in mind, so everyone can see how it plays out.

I've therefore reinstated the sections "The reign of Wilhelm Steinitz" and "The Lasker controversies", but left in place the material incorporated from these into the pen portraits so editors can compare the effects. Philcha (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Structure

The structure of the article doesn't make sense to me. It discusses Steinitz and Lasker in great detail, and then goes back to the pre 1886 champions, then talks about Steintiz and Lasker again. In addition, it seems odd to begin with financing. The order is very confusing. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see User:Philcha was adding the above section to the talkpage as I was writing this one. It might have been better, if you wished to duplicate information so people can compare the effects, to do it in a subpage of your userspace, as anyone coming now to the article itself might wonder why there is so much repetition. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you check out my previous comments (cited above), I actually think this article needs a different approach (I suggested these points 2 weeks ago, gave 2 week's notice of my intentions and there have been no serious objections):

The evolution of the Championship is sufficiently complex and supported by such detailed sources that it warrants being the dominant aspect of the article. For example there were 3 attempts to produce agreed rules for challenges before 1946-1948, and the first of these (1888-1889; supported by the reigning champion) produced a "candidates tournament". If that means reducing the pen portraits, so be it - the bio articles are getting fuller, and are acquiring more thorough analyses of champions' play and influence.
The "official" / "unofficial" distinction is a recent over-simplification which is not supported by the historical evidence. IMO we should mention it because it's so commonly seen, but should not use it as a basis for the structure of the article. Philcha (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't wish to discourage the large amount of excellent work you're doing, but I must second PK3's request: please keep it chronological, and please leave the article in a state so that it makes sense. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what happened: I did some rearranging, to try to fix the order, and I made that clear in my edit summary. Philcha thought I had deleted his sections (which I hadn't), and so dropped them in a second time under the edit summary "Reinstate "The reign of Wilhelm Steinitz" and "The Lasker controversies")", leading to the repetition. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did notice that Peter Ballard had moved rather than deleted my edits.

I agree about the awkwardness of the structure is it is at present. I now think it's "make your mind up" time. I've already stated why I think the "politics" of the World Championship should be the main focus of this article, so I'll add just 1 further point: after 1948 the history of the system was uneventful until 1970ish (Fischer), despite there being 5 different champions in that period. Philcha (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I think results, matches and people should take pride of place in the article. That's what most histories I've seen focus on, and I think that's what's of most general interest. Match rules have a place, especially 1948-93 where they were fixed. Before 1948 the rules varied so much that, if they begin taking up too much space, I think they should go in the champions' articles, or even individual match articles. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Ballard, I think the 2 solutions you proposed would create an awful lot of duplication: Wilhelm Steinitz + Johannes Zukertort for the disputes of 1872-1866; Wilhelm Steinitz + American Chess Congress + Isidore Gunsberg (? + Mikhail Chigorin + Max Weiss ?) for the American Chess Congress' attempt in 1888-1889 to produce a system; Emanuel Lasker + José Raúl Capablanca (? + Akiba Rubinstein + Aron Nimzowitsch) for the Lasker controversies; Efim Bogoljubow + FIDE for the "FIDE champion"; Alexander Alekhine + José Raúl Capablanca + Max Euwe + Salo Flohr + FIDE for the late 1930s muddle, etc. It would be much better to have one main article plus briefer references in the other articles to the relevant parts of the details, and the main article would also do something the individual articles cannot do, which is to show how the the whole process, how one event influenced another, etc. Otherwise we might as well just scrap the whole World Chess Championship article, as all of its content (before I started editing) could likewise be split among various individual articles.

Re "That's what most histories I've seen focus on," it depends what you mean by "history". Books like Kasparov's My Great Predecessors have more specific objectives, in the case of MGP to show what each player contributed to our understanding of the game. An actual historical book generally contains a mix of chronological and thematic chapters. For example I just looked at A History of England by Keith Feiling, and between the chapters "The Angevins 1154-1213" and "Revolution and Reform 1213-1272" there's one titled "Preparation for nationality" - and so on. World Chess Championship cannot cover players' careers in anything like the detail of the individual player articles, and the best way it can add value to Wikipedia is by covering the development of the world championship theme (or meme - and that's not one of my flippant puns). Philcha (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I've overstated my case - I don't want no politics, just a balance. Certainly details (tedious details IMHO) like player payments belong in the individual match pages. If one section gets really verbose (e.g. the formalizing of the concept of World Champion in Steinitz's day) then give it its own separate article, rather than duplicating it in players' articles. But I'm still of the opinion that there is a place for an overview of the entire history of the world chess championship, and that place is this article, and if ANY one section gets too detailed then it belongs in a sub-article. But anyway, I don't just want a 2 person discussion, let's hear some other opinions. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, the article should be arranged chronologically and primarily concerned with the players and the results. Histories of England are indeed sometimes treated thematically, but I don't think I've ever seen the World Chess Championship treated that way. If there are sources on the chess WC that are organized that way, let us know and we can take a look. Deriving grand themes for this article that aren't explicit in our sources is synthesis and original research. Quale (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Quale has just highlighted my point: Bird is explicit about stakes inflation; Spinrad is explicit about attempts to identify a "world number one" before the term "world chess champion" became current; Winter is explicit about the rise of the term "world chess champion" and about most of the issues raised by Steinitz' reign, including its start date; Landsberger and Thulin are explicit about the American Chess Congress' attempt to define rules and about Steinitz' co-operation with this project; the sources I've cited are explicit about the Lasker controversies and attempts to resolve them, and about how Capablanca's demand for a $10,000 stake raised a barrier to challenges in the early 1920s; Winter is scathing about the late 1930s muddle and explicit about the 1946-1948 interregnum and how it was resolved. There's no original research and I don't think there's so much as a prima facie case for synthesis. And if you look at the range of sources, you'll see that there are also no grounds for accusations of Undue weight.

I actually started off fairly comfortable with the view presented by the world champion bio articles etc. as at around the begining of 2008. When editing Wilhelm Steinitz I got curious about how the 1886 start date for his reign became conventional wisdom, as I remembered that Fine used 1866; that's when I found Winter on "Early uses ..", but at that point it was just something that was nice to know. Then I thought I should improve the context for Wilhelm Steinitz. First I edited the articles on his major competitors Johannes Zukertort and Joseph Henry Blackburne‎, and then on his predecessor as "world number one", Adolf Anderssen - no surprises in any of these. Then I though it would be useful to know more about Howard Staunton, and that's when Spinrad's "Early World Rankings" got me thinking about World Chess Championship. I can't remember exactly when I picked up the Thulin/Landsbreger stuff about about the American Chess Congress' attempt to define rules, I can only remember that it wasn't in my first set of edits on Wilhelm Steinitz. Then more recently I started editing Emanuel Lasker, raised a query on Talk:Emanuel Lasker about his negotiations with Rubinstein and Capa, which Peter Ballard kindly answered, and found out about what I've titled "The Lasker controversies". I can't remember exactly when in this sequence I first started editing Mikhail Botvinnik, FIDE and Alexander Alekhine, but researching for these edits put me on to the sources for the late 1930s muddle and the Interregnum.

In short, I didn't even find the sources, they found me and changed my mind. Philcha (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Peter and I are arguing. There's no doubt that writers have treated individual issues in depth (Alekhine and Capablanca negotiations, etc.), but I've never seen any of them say that these individual stories are the story of the history of the World Championship as a whole. That simply isn't the way that the entire history is organized. It's a chronological story centered on individuals, not match negotiations, that should be told chronologically. Fischer defended his demand for a two game victory margin requirement for the challenger in 1975 by pointing out that similar conditions had been used in one or more of Lasker's defenses of his title, but that doesn't mean that we should necessarily break match conditions into a separate section and deal with 140 years of match negotiation history there out of chronological order. Each of the specific issues you talk about belongs to a particular time frame, and can be discussed in chronological sequence where it has appropriate context. To elevate match financing as the central point of interest in the World Championship series is undue weight, since that's not the way it is normally viewed. Issues and controversies surrounding financing and match conditions should be covered, but to give them a central place above the individuals is not a good idea. To go back to the history of England example: suppose we were writing about the last 1000 years of English history. You can imagine at least two ways to organize such an article: 1) chronologically, breaking up the times in reasonably sized pieces and dealing with politics, technology, etc within each time period, or 2) by topic, one section for politics covering all of the last 1000 years and another for technology, again covering the last 1000 years, etc. Either organization would be valid, but for most purposes the chronological organization would be vastly superior to separating each topic out and covering the chronology repeatedly. Quale (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The organisation I've been using is chronological, but focusses on the management of championship contests rather than on individual players - I don't think focussing on players will work as a framework because e.g the late 1930s muddle involved 4 players directly (Alekhine, Euwe, Capablanca and Flohr), at least 2 others accidentally (Keres & Botvinnik challenged Alekhine after AVRO; Fine tied for 1st at AVRO but dropped out), and an organisation (FIDE); conversely from 1948 to 1969 we saw the same script enacted by a varying cast. I have not "elevated match financing as the central point of interest in the World Championship series" - the evidence shows that it was only a general obstacle from 1904 (Marshall's challenge to Lasker) to 1927, and after 1927 Alekhine made it an obstacle only for Capa, but not for Bogoljubow or Euwe. Looking further ahead than I've written, it nearly became an obstacle in 1972, while in 1993 it was an issue when Kasparov and Short broke with FIDE in 1993, but was no obstacle to their match. I outlined match financing (1843-1937) up front in order to avoid explaining the basics of match financing every time it did become relevant. Philcha (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"FIDE, Euwe and AVRO" and "Birth of FIDE's World Championship challenge cycle"

For the moment I've just copied in the corresponding content from FIDE, which in turn refers to Interregnum of World Chess Champions for the most detailed account of that messy period. That means there's a lot of duplication and we need to decide which article should do the heavy lifting for which topic. My own feelings are:

World Chess Championship should be the "root" article, so that it tells a continuous story from the beginning to the present.
Interregnum of World Chess Champions should continue to be the main article for its own subject, as it's too big and complex to fit easily into another article. We should look for ways to shorten the corresponding parts of "Birth of FIDE's World Championship challenge cycle".
The late 1930s muddle is not at present a big enough topic to justify a separate article. Since World Chess Championship is getting quite large, I suggest the details should go in FIDE and the account in World Chess Championship can be shortened, if this is possible without too much loss of significant information. Philcha (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is World Champion ?

I would like to discuss here a very precise point: who can be labelled World Champion in the Player InfoBox, and who cannot. To open the debate, here is my list of who I would call World Champion (in no particular order...):

Steinitz
Lasker
Capablanca
Alekhine
Euwe
Botvinnik
Smyslov
Tal
Petrosian
Spassky
Fischer
Karpov
Kasparov
Kramnick
Khalifman
Ponomariov
Topalov
Anand
Kasimdzhanov

That means I basically include about everyone after Steinitz in the list, but no one before. Opinions ? SyG (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that list. Certainly no-one before Steinitz should be in an infobox. I noticed in the A review of Howard Staunton that he was listed as "unofficial" but I think that should definitely go. The FIDE only champions are fine I think: although not universally accepted they did win the title under the auspices of the sport's governing body.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we also need to standardise the qualifications we add in cases where the situation is not so clear-cut, including:

Steinitz for the period 1866 to 1886, as the concept of a world championship firmed up during that period. For example contemporary writers described Steinitz as "world champion" after his 1872 match win over Zukertort. (Winter)
The concept of a disputed world championship appeared during the "Ink War" between Steinitz and Zukertort+Hoffman+etc. (Winter)

A previous discussion seemed to conclude that the common "official" / "unofficial" distinction is a bad one. I would suggest:

"formal" / "informal" to identify whether a contest was pre-defined as for the world championship. In that case Steinitz was an informal champion 1866-1886 and formal champion 1986-1894. I suggest "formal" should be the default, i.e. only "informal" would appear in the infobox. AFAIK Steinitz 1866-1866 is the only case where the sources (e.g. BCM and Lasker's Chess Magazine, both in the early 20th century; Fine's World's Great Chess Games, 1952) are strong enough to justify the use of "informal" rather than "sometimes acclaimed as" (see next item).
"sometimes acclaimed as" for cases that are even less clear than "informal". This would probably apply to Deschapelles, La Bourdonnais, Staunton, Morphy and other players who were hailed as "world champion". Uses would have to be discussed case by case.
"disputed" / "undisputed". This would apply to some of the period 1866-1886 and to 1993-2006. "undisputed" should be the default.
The case of Steinitz and Zukertort in the late 1870s is quite messy. I suggest on the basis of the sources cited by Winter:
- Steinitz: 1866-86 "informal", approx 1879-1886 "informal, disputed"
- Zukertort: approx 1879-1886 "sometimes acclaimed as, disputed"
In theory Steinitz would have abdicated in favour of the winner of New York 1889, but a situation arose that the American Chess Congress had not considered: Chigorin and Weiss ties for 1st place, drew their play-off, and neither wanted to play a championship match. In theory perhaps the title was vacant, but everyone just ignored the problem and the Steinitz-Gunsberg match was regarded as being a defence of the title by Steinitz. I suggest we follow that prudent example.
Lasker 1920-21 is a worse mess - in 1920 Lasker abdicated in favour of Capa and Capa apparently accepted that (he had little choice), but the rest of the chess world was up in arms, some disputing Lasker's right to abdicate and others some disputing his right to name his successor. The prudent course might be to use the conventional date (1921) but add footnotes in the Lasker and Capa articles' infoboxes to explain the mess. Philcha (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I suggest the succession boxes at the bottom should start with Steinitz 1866 - IIRC one of the templates is flexible enough to handle the changing classification of his reign. Philcha (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea as 1886 is the generally recognised date. That he was "informally" champion before then is of some interest but Steintiz-Zukertort was the first WCC match.Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also think the Steinitz "box" should start from 1886. (For the same reason as PK3, that this is what most sources say). Of course the article body can explain the ambiguity in detail. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know the dates of the "most sources" Peter Ballard mentions. BCM (1894) and Lasker (1908) say 1866, and I think NY Times 1894 means 1866 but its arithmetic is a bit off. More recent writers who follow this example include Fine (World' Great Chess Games, 1952), Robert Byrne (Pastimes; Chess - NY Times December 17, 1989), Unsound but irresistible fun (Washington Times May 16, 2003), UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography: Wilhelm Steinitz, The World Chess Champions, by GM Raymond Keene OBE. Note that Winter's sources from the 1870s accept that there was a world champion, although they argued about who should be recognised as champion. Why should all these sources receive less weight?

The Oxford Companion to Chess, just about the most reliable secondary source out there, begins its entry on the world championship with "in 1886, two years after Morphy's death, Steinitz and Zuthertort played a match agreeing between themselves, but to the general satisfaction of the chess public, that the winner should be the individual world champion." Steinitz's entry says, "World Champion, 1886-1894." and says of the 1886 match, "they agreed that the first to win ten games would be declared world champion, and that if each won nine the title would not be awarded". Thus it was the first WCC match. We're here to report what the most reliable secondary sources say. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you back up the claim that The Oxford Companion to Chess is "just about the most reliable secondary source out there"? How would you justify the claim that on this point it is more reliable than sources in or shortly after Steinitz' lifetime?

What is your interpretation of the reasoning that your quote from Oxford Companion to Chess appears to present? As far as I can see it is: 2 players agreed beforehand that the winner of their match would be declared world champion; therefore that was the first WCC match. Two unknown patzers could have made a similar agreement, and the world would have ignored the outcome. That strongly suggests that recognition by informed commentators is essential. In the sources that I've found, that recognition appears to have been (retrospectively) awarded to Steinitz-Zuckertort 1872. Others from the late 1870s use the 1866 Anderssen-Steinitz match as one of the reasons for regarding Steinitz as world champion in the late 1870s.

Are you actually claiming that Oxford Companion to Chess’ judgement is so much more reliable than those of BCM (1894), Emanuel Lasker (1908), Fine (1952) and R.Byrne (1989) that all sources that present a different view should be ignored?

PS I can also present sources that say that Morphy and Staunton were regarded as world champions. Philcha (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"With luck the Oxford Companion to Chess will mark a new era of accuracy in chess writing. Never has the record been set straight so often within the covers of a single volume"--Edward Winter. He also called it "a masterpiece representing a landmark in the literature of our game". I tend to trust its judgment in cases like this. I'm concerned about your reference to "sources that you've found" as in my view that's straying dangerously into the territory of original research. It's not our job to sift through the evidence, it's to report the conclusions that others have come to. If the BCM in 1894 referred to Steinitz as being champion for the last 28 years that perhaps worth mentioning somewhere in an article (as Peter Ballard says) but to use that as justification to change 1886 to 1866 in an infobox is ludicrous in my view. The fact is most sources today cite 1886 as the recognised beginning of the World Championship and we have to go along with that.Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Who coined the phrase "official" world champion and what justification did the writer give? Does age affect master chess? blames Golombek in 1957 (no citation or quote given). Can anyone give an earlier ref, preferably with some content?

The earlier discussion also seemed to conclude that "official"/"unofficial" was not a good label. I'd be happy with "formal" / "informal". Philcha (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Regarding the starting point of Steinitz' reign, here are what various authors have to say, and my comments thereon:

Supporting 1886

International Championship Chess: A Complete Record of FIDE Events by B.M. Kazic (1974), ISBN 0-273-07078-9, says on page 205 that Steinitz, after beating Anderssen in 1866, "began thinking about proclaiming himself champion of the world. He did not dare take this step, however, as Morphy, though ailing, still lived. ... Morphy was still the best player in the world to the Americans, who would have protested if someone were to take the champion's title. This is why Steinitz decided to watch and wait." (Nice mind-reading there!) Beginning on page 206, the book lists "Official World Champions", the first of whom is Steinitz "1886-1894" (i.e. after his 1886 match victory over Zukertort, which is discussed in detail). The author, Bozidar Kazic, is described as having been a permanent delegate to FIDE since 1960, arbiter of the 1970 USSR-Rest of the World Match and 1971 Fischer-Taimanov match, etc. The book has a foreword "By the President of FIDE" Max Euwe, who explains that the book is intended "to bring together all events and facts, conveniently arranged in one book, which will have immense documentary value for organizers, officials, authors, players and for many more chess-interested groups."

(Subtle nod to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess there at the end :-) )

- Comment: Based on the book's subtitle, Kazic's status as a FIDE official, and the foreword by FIDE President Euwe, I take it that the book is intended to set forth the official FIDE position on the "Official World Champions" and the dates of their reign. I am therefore inclined to give it great weight.

The World Chess Championship by Svetozar Gligoric and Robert Wade (1972), page xi, lists "Previous World Champions" (i.e. those occurring "Prior to the FIDE assuming full control over the world title after the death of Alekhine") and has a list of various matches for the world championship before 1948. The first of these is Steinitz-Zukertort, 1886. The book states, "These were all regarded as being for the actual title which Steinitz first adopted." At the bottom of the page, the authors separately list "Matches in which the winner was acknowledged as the leading player": MacDonnell-de la Bourdonnais (1834), Saint-Amant-Staunton (1843), Anderssen as winner of London 1851, Anderssen-Morphy (1857), Anderssen-Steinitz (1866), Steinitz-Blackburne (1876)

The Oxford Companion to Chess (2nd edition 1992) by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, p. 450, first line of "world championship" entry: "In 1886, two years after Morphy's death, Steinitz and Zukertort played a match agreeing between themselves, but to the general satisfaction of the chess public, that the winner should be the individual world champion."

The Kings of Chess by William Hartston (1985), p. 60, writing of Z's triumph at London 1883: "Even after losing his last three games (apparently through sheer exhaustion), he finished three points ahead of Steinitz, who took second prize. It was clear that the two would have to meet for a true World Championship match. With the death of Morphy in 1884, there was now nobody who could object to the winner of such a match calling himself Champion of the World." On pp. 57-59 (there is a drawing on 58), Hartston wrote, "In later years, Steinitz was to backdate his tenure of the World Championship to that match with Anderssen in 1866 ('I was champion of the world for twenty-eight years, because I was twenty years ahead of my time'), though at the time there was no suggestion of any title at stake."

Supporting 1866

Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess (1977), p. 309, opens its article about Steinitz with "World Champion 1866-94." On the same page, of his match victory over Anderssen: "His reign as World Champion is taken from this date, though he did not coin the phrase until 1886."

The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia by Nathan Divinsky (1990), p. 203, like the above begins its Steinitz article with "World Champion 1866-94." On 204, writing of the S-Z match, "In 1886 these two chess colossi played the first match billed as the World Championship."

William Steinitz Selected Chess Games" edited by Charles Devide (Dover, 1974; originally 1901), p. 4. The 1866 match with Anderssen "informally involved the right to the championship of the world, and thenceforth Steinitz held the title for twenty-eight years, until he had to give way to youth in his match against Lasker." (Emphasis added.)
- Comment: The "informally" gives me pause, since Morphy et al. could also be said to "informally" be world champions.

Undecided

Al Horowitz, The World Chess Championship: A History (1973): Writing of S's victory over Anderssen in 1866, Horowitz wrote on page 24, "Whether that victory entitled Steinitz to be called champion of the world is of course a matter of opinion; whether Steinitz himself claimed to be so is unknown. He gained immensely in prestige after his unexpected triumph, but there is no evidence that he attempted to exploit his newly achieved reputation, either as an active player or as a journalist. The first we hear of the title per se is the claim in the articles of the Steinitz-Zukertort match of 1886 that the world championship was at issue, but there is no indication in contemporary accounts that Steinitz was the titleholder and Zukertort his challenger."
- Comment: On balance, I believe that this also supports 1886. Absent contemporary accounts showing that Steinitz claimed the world championship and was acknowledged as the world champion, Steinitz from 1866 until his 1886 win over Zukertort had the same status that Philidor, de la Bourdonnais, Staunton, Anderssen, Morphy etc. previously had: commonly acknowledged as the world's best player, but not "World Champion".

Anne Sunnucks, The Encyclopaedia of Chess (1970), pp. 441-42: The 1886 match between S and Z "was referred to as the first 'official' championship of the world, although Steinitz had demonstrated by his successes that he had been the strongest player in the world since 1872. Some say that he should be regarded as having been World Champion since 1866, when he defeated Anderssen."

My conclusion: I would treat the FIDE date of 1886 as authoritative. In addition, it appears that there is no evidence that Steinitz formally claimed the title of World Champion at any time before the players announced, and the world accepted, that his 1886 match with Zukertort would determine who was the "World Champion." There appears to be no dispute, even by those sources that support the earlier 1866 date for the beginning of Steinitz' reign, that S's 1866 match with Anderssen was not billed as a world championship match, and that only after 1886 did Steinitz start "backdating" his status as World Champion to 1866.

As to what adjective to use before "World Champion," I am inclined toward "Undisputed" and "Disputed" (for the period between 1993 and the conclusion of the Topalov-Kramnik match). Krakatoa (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Impressively thorough, and all worth citing in an article. However so are the sources from the 1870s (mainly in Winter's page), BCM (1908), Lasker 1908, Fine (1952) and R.Byrne (1987). Failure to recognise these would be Historical revisionism (negationism).

I'm not trying to push the view that Steinitz' reign definitively began in 1866. My main points are: a respectable set of sources support 1866 (and 1872) and should also be mentioned; there is no black-and-white dividing line (no pun intended, honest!) because the concept of a world champion evolved gradually, starting not later than Fraser's Magazine, Vol. XXII, July to December, 1840. In this evolution: the first stage was by acclamation; then some contests were retrospectively labelled as for the championship (the most contemporary case may be for Steinitz-Zukertort 1872, but I've also quoted sources that retrospectively support 1866); the 1870s sources were in no doubt that there was a world champion but disagreed about who that was; then there were calls for a match to setle the issue; finally the 2 credible candidates played a decisive match.

"Disputed" is the right term for 1993-2006 - and for the late 1870s.

I like the fact that Devide (1901) wrote that the 1866 match with Anderssen "informally involved the right to the championship of the world" - I think Devide overstated his case, as there's no evidence (yet!) that contenpraries regarded it as a championship match (in fact Staunton castigated Steinitz for his impertinence in challenging Anderssen, but I think "informal" is the right term for the situation before 1886.

I really do not like the terms "official" and "unofficial", as I do not see in what sense Steinitz' position became more "official" after 1886.

However this discussion turns out, we now have a rich collection of sources, most of which make important points. Since we may not be able to use them all in an article, I suggest they should be catalogued in a resources page, perhaps as a sub-page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess, with a link to the sub-page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Philcha (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not misreading the intention of other editors (at least mine!) No one, I think, is disputing that the article should reflect the pre-1886 ambiguity. The question was purely about infoboxes (and by extension the table at the start of the article). In boxes where only one number can go, I think we need to say 1886. We certainly can't just say 1866. If we can put the ambiguity neatly in the infobox, maybe that's OK. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Krakatoa (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I said we need to standardise the qualifications we add in cases where the situation is not so clear-cut. I think "informal" is good for Steinitz pre-1886. We also need to decide whether we need a different qualification for e.g. La Bourdonnais or Staunton . I would say "Yes" for Staunton because his supporters seem much less numerous and strong than Steinitz'; I haven't researched La Bourdonnais but my preliminary impression is that his level of support is closer to Steinitz' than to Staunton's.

I'd also simplify my earlier suggestion about "disputed", and take the line that "disputed"/"undisputed" should only apply to "formal" champions. When there's no widely recognised "rite of passage", the possibility of disputes comes with the territory.

Here's a sample infobox for Steinitz. For Kasparov I'd suggest:

undisputed :	1985-1993
PCA :	1993-2000

If Kramnik beats Anand in October 2008 I think we'd have:

Braingames :	2000-2006
undisputed :	2006-2007
undisputed :	2008-present

and we'd have to look up a really turbulent period of political history for the succession box at the bottom. Philcha (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think for Garry Kasparov and Vladimir Kramnik the current infoboxes and succession boxes are just right. In the boxes we just say "Classical" to cover the PCA/WCC/Braingames/Classical mess. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with your desire to keep it brief. However I think "Classical" is the wrong term because IIRC it was claimed as a slogan by opponents of FIDE's "championship-lite" proposals (tournament, knock-out tournament, reduced time limit, etc.). Kramnik 2000-2006 and Karpov 1993-1999 were just as much "Classical" champions because they fought for the title under the traditional conditions - in fact IIRC both said something similar when opposing FIDE's "championship-lite" proposals. Philcha (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Briefly returning to the often debated terminology for World Champions either side of the 1886 divide, Hartston sidesteps the "formal"/"official" awkwardness by using "crowned"/"uncrowned". Have we considered this possibility? Brittle heaven (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

After leaving my sub-conscious to mull over it for a few days, I don't think "crowned"/"uncrowned" is good, because the metaphor has too many weaknesses. From one point of view "crowned" suggests there's some recognized performer of the ritual, e.g. the Archbishop of Canterbury in the UK; as far as I can see that's not true for any champion up to 1948. On the other hand in the bad old days a new monarch would crown himself by taking the crown from his recently-deceased predecessor's head and placing it on his own, and that kind of self-elevation would get us back into whether Staunton should be regarded as a world champion.

But thanks for raising another possibility. I think the more options we consider, the happier we'll be with the eventual decision. Philcha (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that crowned/uncrowned isn't best because it implies some sort of ritual. If people don't like "official" or "undisputed" (for Steinitz after 1886), perhaps "universally recognized"? It's got a more positive spin on it than "undisputed". For instance, it seems to me that it's not so much that people "disputed" that Morphy was world champion in 1859, but that the term "World Champion" wasn't in common use. So perhaps "unofficial" for pre 1886, and "universally recognized" for 1886-1946. Is that helpful? Peter Ballard (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course Hartston uses the crowned/uncrowned term in the 'metaphorical' sense, but as there is a possible 'ritualistic' interpretation, then I agree it may not be the best choice for an encyclopedia, where the avoidance of ambiguity is paramount. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is no snappy word/converse word that completely fulfills the remit here. I seem to recall that "universally recognized" was one of the very first suggestions we came up with and it still seems as good as it gets. The pre-1886 "unofficial" possibly still strays into the land of ambiguity, with the implication that there was a parallel 'official' version, or some kind of office that presided over such matters. However, in the same vein as "universally recognized" comes the less positive "widely accepted". Is there perhaps some harmony between these two terms? I'd say neither phrase would look good in a template, but that seems of secondary importance at this point—bracketed dates plus asterisk and explanatory note would sort that issue. Brittle heaven (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I was writing when I got 2nd prize behind Brittle heaven in an edit conflict:

I absolutely agree that recognition is essential - for example Steinitz' insistence on pre-defining the 1886 match as for the world championship made sense only because he and Zukertort were recognised as the only credible contenders. But I think "universally" is going too far - if one takes the word literally, the championship was vacant 1993-2006. "Widely recognised by respected and knowledgeable players and commentators" is more realistic but vague - what percentage qualifies as "widely"? Provisionally I'd suggest a player should be regarded as a world champion if a number of respected and knowledgeable commentators describe him / her as a world champion or as a credible claimant, and without derogatory qualifications such as "so-called". That criterion has the advantage of being able to handle the disputed title 1993-2006 and the division between Steinitz' and Zukertort's supporters in the 1870s. Does that sound like a reasonable way forward? (end of edit conflict)

I agree with Brittle heaven's "there is no snappy word/converse word that completely fulfills the remit here." I think Brittle heaven also summarised the weaknesses of "official"/"unofficial" very effectively. And "bracketed dates plus asterisk and explanatory note would sort that issue" is excellent common sense. Philcha (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "widely accepted" is too weak. I would contend that Kasparov was "widely accepted" as world champion between 1993 and 2000. Philcha writes, "But I think "universally" is going too far - if one takes the word literally, the championship was vacant 1993-2006" - that I think is not an argument against "universally" - the title was split in 1993-2006, and it's OK to choose a word (be that "Universally" or something else) that is applicable for 1883-1993 but not for pre-1886 or 1993-2006. In fact, one could ~~see~~ say the situation 1883-1886 was similar to that in 1993-2006 - two competing titles, resolved in a match. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to put Kasimjanov and the other "FIDE champions" in one line with lasker, botwinnik, kasparow and now Anand? SteMicha (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

similar article