Jump to content

Talk:World Chess Championship/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Development of World Chess Championship

No-one seems happy with my arguments that the history of the World Chess Championship is best structured around the development of a set of processes rather than round player bios. At present the article World Chess Championship contains a huge amount of duplication. I propose to resolve this by creating a new article "Development of World Chess Championship" and moving to there all the content of the current section World_Chess_Championship#Rules_governing_world_championships. -- Philcha (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, see Development of the World Chess Championship -- Philcha (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Televised

Is it televised? 195.188.112.2 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont know, but it is sent in Internet 1 Lab-oratory (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet republics

Why are the republics listed for the Soviet players in the list? Did Botvinnik somehow represent the RSFSR in international play? Did Tal play for the Latvian SSR or Petrosian for the Armenian SSR? I don't think this is the case. Including subdivisions in this kind of list is unusual, and inconsistently done here (Steinitz does not have Bohemia or New York, Lasker does not have Prussia, Fischer does not have New York). Also, is there a reason to include the Russian flag for Alekhine? He represented France throughout his reign, and the Russian flag wasn't even in use at the time. If we really want all this additional information, we should simply expand the table with columns for when and where the players was born, etc. But in a simple "country" column, I expect to find what country the player represented during his reign. -- Jao (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have sympathy with showing that Tal and Petrosian were Latvian and Armenian respectively, but showing the flag of the Soviet republic is rather bizarre because they did not play under that flag. I suggest (e.g. for Tal), the Soviet flag, then "USSR (Latvia)", i.e. showing their country, with what the country is now in brackets. This should be right for both historical accuracy (Tal was Soviet) as well the fact that modern Latvia (rightly) claims Tal as Latvian. (Kasparov and Karpov are exceptions because they really did win the world championships representing both USSR and Russia, but again there is no need to show the Russian or Azerbaijani SSR flags for them.) I've changed it now. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better, thanks! -- Jao (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What criterion is used for filling the "Country" column for the champions? "Soviet Union (Armenia)" for Tigran Petrosian looks inconsistent with the same field for the others. E.g. Mikhail Tal has "Soviet Union (Latvia)", though he is ethnic jew born in Latvia. I'm not sure Tal was regarded his soviet teammates as latvian. Whereas Tigran Petrosian, armenian by ethnic origin and as regarded by his soviet teammates, was born in Soviet Georgia and started playing chess in Georgia, where he spent most of his childhood, and moved [perhaps after a few years in Armenia] to Russia when he was 19 or 20. 91.79.31.13 (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no widely accepted strict distinction criteria for people, born in one soviet republic, then moved to another, and possibly oneself belonging to some third ethnic group, I don't think it is reasonable at all to specify parts of the USSR for the World champions from the USSR. I propose to remove the republics names in parentheses, placing "USSR" only in the column. 91.79.33.219 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bar Chart

I don't like criticising good faith edits, but I wonder if the recently added bar chart Image:ChessWorldChamps18862008.jpg really adds anything to the article. Perhaps it might be better placed in Methods for comparing top chess players throughout history#World Champions by world title reigns. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If no one defends it, I'll remove it soon. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I aim to have a better timeline soon anyhow. I prefer diagrams to loads of text. 82.4.38.108 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Last amateur

A newbie question. "In 1935, he lost the title to the logical Dutch mathematician Max Euwe, the last amateur/world champion"; "Perhaps most remarkably, he (Botvinnik) was not a professional chess player, but a decorated engineer by trade."

Don't these lines contradict each other ? Tintin 16:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the definition of "amateur". I think Euwe qualifies as his main income was from teaching, and his teaching commitments sometimes held back his chess career - see Max Euwe.
Soviet chess players always were a grey area as they received direct and / or indirect state support. Botvinnik's successors were often described as "journalists" and some even had degrees in the subject, but all they ever wrote about was chess (a relatively safe topic!). IMO, for what it's worth, they were no more true amateurs than Soviet Olympic athletes, none of whom had day jobs that limited their training or participation in competitions.
Botvinnik was closer to a true amateur than most Soviet GMs, because he was personally committed to engineering and worked on it at both "at the coalface" and by writing academic articles. However when it came to the crunch he got as much state support as other top Soviet GMs. For example Botvinnik got time off work (with high-level political support) to prepare for the Absolute Championship of the USSR in 1941. I'd describe Botvinnik as both a professional engineer and a professional chess player. --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Tintin 12:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In case you missed it, I reworded it the other day, removing the disputable description of Euwe as the "last amateur world champion". Peter Ballard (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Very belated thanks :-) Tintin 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Vishwanathan Anand Disputed?

Question: Why isn't Vishwanathan Anand listed as an undisputed world champion? I'm pretty sure the world championship 2008 was the real thing.GrandMattster (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He is -- under the section "Undisputed world champions 2006–present."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Development of the World Chess Championship?

I don't think you should have done that. You ask for opinions about a merger, there is one opinion against (mine), and then you go ahead and do it in less than an hour. Bubba73 (talk), 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ask for opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Bubba73 (talk), 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've undone Anthony Appleyard's unilateral conversion of Development of the World Chess Championship into a redirect to World Chess Championship, as it was not agreed - 1 "support", 1 "oppose" above, a complaint about lack of time for discussion, no request for discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess as Bubba73 suggested.
Are there any negative effects on Development of the World Chess Championship of the unilateral merge that we need to sort out? --Philcha (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support merge. There's nothing in Development of the World Chess Championship that doesn't belong here. The only reason it seems that that article might dwarf this one is that duplication of material also required here is needed. Once that duplication is eliminated it should fit fine—summary style is not needed here. This article is already a little messed up, with a completely out of place "How championship contests have been financed" section. This article should be organized chronologically, and this section is awful as placed in the article because it is impossible to make sense of it for anyone who doesn't know who the champions and challengers were without reading most of the article and coming back. In fact, financing is clearly part of the history of the world championship, but it isn't placed in that section. The appropriate way to split summary style is to split out the detail sections such as the articles on the individual champions and championship matches, not the overview and summary sections such as the history of the championship which should stay in the main article. In another similar unfortunate split, Interregnum of World Chess Champions should be merged into World Chess Championship 1948. I'm afraid Philcha and I are unlikely to see eye to eye on either of these. Quale (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Quale, it will be fun discovering whether we can manage to see eye-to-eye without either / both of us going cross-eyed. Merry Christmas to you and to the rest of Wikiproject Chess. --Philcha (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge but maybe not now. Merry Christmas to all! My recollection is that Development of the World Chess Championship was an "amicable split" - someone (Philcha I think) wanted to put in a different emphasis, on negotiations and rules, so we decided he (and others) could go off and do that in a separate article. Now that has been done, I think in principle they should be merged. But I'm not sure the holiday season is the best time, because many editors will be out of action. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge but maybe not now. There is substantial overlap between the two articles: "Championship" talks about unofficial World Champions and the evolution of the concept of the world championship, and "Development" talks about what happened in the decades after 1886. Since the two articles are not (it seems to me) conceptually distinct, I think they should be merged. That said, Peter Ballard is probably right on the timing issue. Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year, to all! (Only 26 more days of The Evil One.) Krakatoa (talk) 11:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If we were to merge ...

If we were to merge the two articles, I think the structure should be mainly that of Development of the World Chess Championship:

  • We already have articles about the individual champions, including those who were in various ways hailed as champion before Steinitz, and in articles about specific championship cycles. Sections of the merged article can easily wikilink or provide "further info" links to the player and championship cycle articles.
  • The idea of a world champion evolved gradually and with some false starts (e.g. Bledow's proposal, published 1848) in the early to mid 19th century, from hyping of authors' favourite players to the 1886 match between Steinitz and Zukertort. Even that match may not have been 100% definitive at the time, as G.A. MacDonnell felt free to hail anyone who was not Wilhelm Steinitz as World Champion.
  • Match financing was always an issue. The "Anti-Book" letter in the The Staunton-Morphy controversy reflects the importance of stakes, and may have been at least partly accurate. Wilhelm Steinitz exploited it to shut out Mason, as the only opponent he was interested in was Zukertort. It became a large and controversial obstacle to challengers in the reigns of Em. Lasker, Capa and Alekhine (who used it to shut out Capa). Note that Botvinnik paid at least lip-service to finance in his own proposal for the WCC 1948 (Mikhail Botvinnik references a Winter page on this).
  • There is no simple relationship between reigns and developments in the WCC system, and a reign-based structure would probably force us to throw away info that will be useful to readers:
    • Steinitz' reign contained instances of many issues that were important later: use of a match rather than a tournament (per Bledow 1848) for settling who was champion; arguments about whether an inactive champion forfeited the title; an attempt to regulate the championship; etc.
    • Since FIDE controlled the WCC 1948-1993 and from 2006 onwards, how this arose is very important. Some of the action involved one or more of Alekhine, Euwe, Bogoljubow, and later Flohr (with Capa in the background) while some did not. And in the late 1920s it looks as if FIDE was trying to set up Bogulojubow as a parallel World Champion.
    • 1948-1963 the FIDE system ran pretty smoothly - one system, 3 or 4 (if you include Petrosian) champions.
    • 1963-1975 were dominated by Fischer's various protests and FIDE's responses, no matter who was champion at the time.
    • 1975 (after Fischer was deposed) to 1981 ran smoothly despite the farcical behaviour of Karpov's and Korchnoi's retinues.
  • Development of the World Chess Championship is unfinished and there's plenty more to cover in the procedures and politics, e.g.
    • The 1984 match and the events leading up to it - Soviet attempts to shut out Kasparov; the termination of the 1984 match, about which someone will spill the beans sometime. Googling for "kasparov karpov campomanes" shows a ton of hits, including Schonberg's 1990 article Kasparov and Karpov Anticipate a Chess War (where I assume "1983" is a misprint), and the Mark Weeks pages below.
    • Aftermath of 1984. See Mark Week's comments on who was champion 1984-1985 and would get the incumbent's advantage and negotiations for the 1986 K-K match.
    • 1987-1992½ apparently ran smoothly, despite the K-K enmity. But Schonberg's 1990 article hints that there was a lot of behind-the-scenes plotting, which looks like promising ground for research.
    • 1993 split in the title and how, as Kasparov later admitted, it made chess less attractive to sponsors - Mammon again!
    • FIDE's experimenting with novel formats 2000-2006, including a knock-out tournament. Although FIDE described these as attempts to make the WCC more exciting, I've seen stuff that suggests FIDE wanted to reduce player-power by reducing the status and possibly reigns of champs.
    • FIDE internal politicking 1993 onwards, so far as it affects the world championship - looks like another fertile area, feel free to interpret "fertile" as well-manured :-)
    • Reunification efforts - obstacles, compromises (e.g. impact on Topalov), consequences. --Philcha (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm partly in agreement with Philcha. I agree that the article should be mainly about the championship, not the individual champions. I agree with a large scale rewrite. But in parts I think Philcha's emphasis is wrong. e.g. I disagree that 1963-1975 was mainly about Fischer. In fact the whole thing ran smoothly between 1948 and 1993 on a 3 year cycle. It is true that Fischer caused a change in the Candidates' format (tournament to matches), but there were many other changes to the structure over the years - in fact there was barely a cycle in which the details did not change. So as advocates of the current article (if there are any) should concede that many details now belong in the players' individual articles, so also I would like to convince Philcha that many of the details he is proposing belong in the individual matches articles. e.g. the Fischer forfeit had no great affect on the FIDE cycle so only needs passing mention (with details in the 1975 match article); and the 1984-5 Karpov-Kasparov abandoned match belongs in the article on the 1984 match article, there is no need for the main article to discuss it much, if at all; and the attempts to get a "Candidates" going in the late 1890s belongs in the article of the Gunsberg match.

If I was rewriting the article it would have 5 main stages:

  1. Up to 1886, with the gradual evolution of the idea of a world champion.
  2. 1886-1946, when there were no fixed rules. Probably each champion would get a mention, but (as Philcha rightly argues) we want something about rules. Again, details can often go in the matches' articles.
  3. 1948-1993 - in a sense there's not a lot to write here, because it all went smoothly. Some higher level comments can be made - of the Soviet dominance 1948-69, of Fischer's impact, and of the Karpov/Korchnoi/Kasparov rivalries 1974-1990 - but there needn't be much.
  4. The 1993-2005 split
  5. 2006 onwards. (Obviously a fairly short section).

Does this proposal present some sort of middle ground? Peter Ballard (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Ballard, I think we're very close to agreement here - probably to the extent that it's better to write the article and deal with questions of what should be the "main" article for what topic as we go. But 1888-1889 was not about a "Candidates", it was meant to be about the title of Champion - I'd interpeted the sources as being about a "Candidates" and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWorld_Chess_Championship&diff=220352053&oldid=218698476 Athulin corrected me] - and it was the unwillingness of Chigorin and Weiss to play a match that put Gunsberg and Steinitz into play and retrospectively turned NY 1998 into a sort of Candidates'. --Philcha (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
En passant I found Mark Weeks' World Chess Championship 2001-02 Braingames & Einstein about some murky manoeuvres. --Philcha (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

World Champion playing in his national championship

This is a little off-topic, but it seems to me that current world champions usually don't play in their national championship. Karpov did it in 1983 and Kasparov in 1988, but those may be the only cases. Do world champions avoid playing in their national championship? I can think of some possible reasons for this: (1) they want to give someone else a chance to be national champion (2) the national championship means little to them while they are world champ, (3) if they played in the national championship and lost, it would look bad. Bubba73 (talk), 03:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

After a little research:
  • No sign that Steinitz played anything that could be called an Austrian, British or US Championship.
  • No sign that Em. Lasker played anything that could be called a German Championship 1894-1921.
  • No sign that Capablanca played in Cuban Championship 1921-1927.
  • No sign that Alekhine played in French Championship 1927-1945.
  • Botvinnik played in the USSR Championship in 1951 (5th), 1952 (1st), 1955 (2nd=, 4-way tie)
  • Karpov played in the USSR Championship in 1976 (1st), 1983 (1st). No sign that he played Russian Championship in his 2nd reign 1993-2000.
  • Kasparov played in the USSR Championship 1988 (1=, w Karpov). No sign that he played Russian Championship after break-up of USSR.
  • No sign that Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian or Spassky played in the USSR Championship while World Champions.
  • Kramnik played in Russian Championship 2000-2006.
  • Haven't bothered looking for FIDE champions 2000-2006 (who were they?)

Only the USSR and Russian Championships were strong enough to give a World Champ decent competition. As for why USSR / Russian world Champs played in their national championships so seldom, that's anyone's guess. Karpov and Kasparov played in many international tournaments where the strongest opposition was Soviet / Russian, so I doubt if fear of losing face was a factor. Karpov in 1976 and perhaps Kasparov in 1988 felt they had to prove something. It's hard to see what Karpov's motive was in 1983. Robert Byrne, reporting on the 1983 USSR Championship, wrote "It's standard snobbery for a world champion not to participate in his national championship. Isn't it superfluous to show he can dominate the home crowd after he has defeated the world's best?" --Philcha (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction : Botvinnik played in the USSR Championship in 1951 (5th), 1952 (1st= with Taimanov, won the play-off), 1955 (3rd=, 4-way tie)--Cbigorgne (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about Bubba's (1) above; it seems to me you'd have to be a very non-competitive or generous spirited world champ (maybe Spassky?) to want to give someone else a chance, but I think (2) and (3) are very valid.

I would also add that there would likely be a greater pull on the time of a world champ—e.g. appearing at bookstores, signings, simuls, exhibitions, radio/tv interviews, state events etc., where they would no doubt be paid generous expenses and be able to plug their books, win fans and cement their reputations. As world champ, they automatically join the 'elite club' of the day, giving unlimited access to lucrative, foreign, invitation-only tournaments—most world champions played Hastings for example. And let's not forget the time needed to research and prepare novelties and openings for the next major campaign; a successful defence of the title isn't going to come easy, so something's got to give. For these reasons, I would personally view Byrne's 'standard snobbery' claim as a poor choice of words, but yes, showing you can win the domestic contest does seem a bit superfluous.

Cafferty and Taimanov don't say much about Soviet Ch. rewards, but I would imagine the prizemoney wouldn't be that great—most top Soviets relied on their government stipend to survive and attendence would show that they took their role seriously, also to stamp their claim on Soviet team selection; the ability to travel abroad was a huge appeal, that all but the world champ would have to fight for. Poor Levenfish won it and still wasn't allowed to travel! Baturinsky cracked the whip post-Fischer and told them to get back to basics and play the Championship and play to win, not draw, or else. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Baturinsky cracked the whip post-Fischer ..." looks interesting enough to use somewhere. Do you a have a ref or two, and who was Baturinsky? --Philcha (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Viktor Davidovich Baturinsky (b. 1914) - one time player, turned KGB colonel and Moscow Central Chess Club President - also author of Botvinnik's Biography. He was well respected by the Soviet Chess authorities and along with the all-Union Sports Committee, placed the blame for Fischer's success on lazy, non-enterprising play and too many draws from the Soviet's elite players. In particular, he had an ongoing spat with Spassky, who had rejected him as his representative on the lead up to the 1972 W Ch in Amsterdam. This is summarised and referenced in 1973 in chess and also mentioned, in passing, by Hartston in The Kings of Chess (p.173), although there may be other sources around too. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More sources

Not this article lacks sources, but there's always room for more:

  • How Many World Champions? by Tim Harding - a lot of fun with the FIDE mess 1993-2006; IMO his attachment to the idea of an "official" world champion is wrong (and inconsistent, see his remarks on FIDE), but his reasoning and examples are fun and thought-provoking, especially for pre-1851. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Wayback Machine link. Double sharp (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The image File:Botvinnik M 01.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added non-free use info, enough I hope. Bubba73 (talk), 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice you added FURs for all uses of this image - thanks, Bubba73! --Philcha (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1984 termination

Some sources: --Philcha (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

All good stuff. As I said before, World Chess Championship 1984 is the place for it. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Re details, I agree. However the sources say Kasparov was suspicious of Campomanes as a result of 1984. --Philcha (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

merge has created a mess

Hi all. I don't want to sound too critical, because we're all volunteers, and sometimes can only give a little time to working on this. But the merge has created an article which is a total mess. It isn't really a merge, it's two articles stuffed together side by side. Now this would be OK for a day ot two, but it's been like that for over a month (since December 12). I intend to take a serious scalpel to it. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. in case anything important gets lost, here is the version before I began editing:[1] Peter Ballard (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Peter Ballard. I agree it's a mess at present - that's normal in major revisions of big articles.
The other thing I notice is that citations have been omitted from a lot of material imported from Development of the World Chess Championship.
I'd move the list of champions - to the bottom, or to a "list of" page. In it's present position it's a huge wall between readers and the text.
Ultimately we need to decide whether it's about the concept and system or about players and matches. --Philcha (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It needs to be about both. And I agree with moving the list (because it's so long), but that's a minor issue. But I'm having a problem - I'm finding the merge hard to do. As I tried to merge the pre-1886 stuff, I found there was too much detail, making the article (IMHO) quite a heavy read. This is an overview of the world chess championship, and just as it doesn't need a description of each champion's playing style, it also doesn't need details of who thought what about the world championship in different years (like letters to the Times in 1843). So for some of this detail I think we need to do one of two things: either bury it in the footnotes, or (my preference) change Development of the World Chess Championship to only be the history up to the widespread acceptance of the title in 1886, (or rename it to Development of the World Chess Championship up to 1886). That way we can push all the detail (of the gradual acceptance of the concept of a world championship) into that more detailed article, and World Chess Championship can be the overview article. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Making this the WP:SUMMARY article and others, including Development of the World Chess Championship, the detail articles is a promising idea. However I'd stop the "ancient history" stuff (Development of the World Chess Championship) at 1948, as there's a lot of evolution 1886-1948 and 1948 is when what most of us learned to think of as the WCC emerged - cycles of qualifying tournaments & matches. --Philcha (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still strongly opposed to content forks, but I think a different radical idea could work better. Looking at Development of the World Chess Championship, aside from the the "How championship contests have been financed" section it's really well organized, and Philcha's work actually looks like I think this main article should. I don't agree that 1843 letters to the editor don't belong in this article: the "Early uses of "World Champion"" section is only four nicely written and referenced paragraphs long and that important material belongs in the main article. I think the best bet would be a reverse merge into the Development article. In other words, essentially scrap the current messy World Chess Championship article and use Philcha's nice Development article as a replacement. Merge anything we should keep from the current article into the text and structure provided by the Development article. I think it would be better to start from the cleaner slate provided by the development article and carefully add to it than trying to prune the ungainly beast we have currently. There are plenty of places to include detail to avoid making the main article too long. (We have articles on most of the individual matches. Most of these are just stubs, and need improvement. Player styles and the like can go in their bios). I think that the only people who should have any say in how the work is done are those actually doing the work. That hasn't been me, but this particular situation is annoying enough that I may come out of semi-retirement to try to help. Quale (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding difficult, I largely disagree with both of you. In answer to Philcha, what happened before 1886 and after 1886 was two quite different things. Before 1886, the idea of a world championship gradually evolved. After 1886, the question turned to how to choose the challenger, and who owns the championship (the champion, or some organisation). And while the answers to those two questions changed in 1948, they're still not settled. In other words, I think 1886 is a good date to use, allowing a more in-depth article on the emergence/development of a WCC. In answer to Quale, that is not a content fork, it is a more in-depth article. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Further answering Quale, I don't want to rely too much on the development article as a template. If you farm out all the player and match info to other articles, and instead fill it with the level of detail in the development article, then you get a very "heavy" article, full of detail I suspect most people don't want to see. So just as player bio and match details belong in sub-article, so too does the detail of how the WCC emerged. Anyway, if the pre-1886 and Steinitz sections of "development" are pushed into a pre-1886 article, then the remaining pre-1948 sections - Lasker, Capa and FIDE/Euwe/AVRO - are not really that long, and can probably largely go in an accessible overview article, or into article on the matches they related to. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Re "you get a very "heavy" article, full of detail I suspect most people don't want to see", I wouldn't pre-judge readers that way. And if you think that's heavy, you should see some biology and paleontolgy artciles.
Re "who owns the championship (the champion, or some organisation). And while the answers to those two questions changed in 1948, they're still not settled" you're dead right. In line with my views on on "official" / "unofficial", I'd say there's a third possibility, supported by informed chess enthusiasts - and one could argue that hasn't changed since the 1870s or earlier. However these real or apparent changes in ownership are important.
Bottom line - I think we need some more opinions on this! --Philcha (talk)

El Morro (chess player)

A November 2008 edit added

to the list of leading chess masters before 1886. While I certainly find it plausible that there was a strong chess playing Moor in Portugal at that time, I can't find any mention of El Morro in any of my chess books nor did I find anything using google. I removed it, but if it can be sourced, it can go back in. Quale (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks mentions El Morro (page 91) in connection with Giovanni Leonardo (1542-1587). Eroica (talk) 10:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
El Morro is also mentioned as Il Moro in the article on Giovanni Leonardo - Eroica (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have Anne Sunnucks but I missed that mention. She writes that Giovanni Leonardo beat El Morro in a match (year not specified) and that El Morro was the best player in Portugal at the time. I don't know if this means that El Morro should go back in the article or not. Quale (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the link to El Morro from the disambiguation page to the (nonexistent) page "El Morro (chess player)". I've also updated the disambiguation page to list and link to "El Morro (chess player)". DWorley (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Article organization

Hello. I've read through the various talk page topics above and sort of see why this article is organized the way it is.

However, as a reader who came to this article for the first time to learn about a subject of which I only knew a limited amount, and therefore as someone with a fresh set of eyes, I must say that the oraganizatiin of this article is terrible. It absolutely needs a more purely chronological organization and flow. As it stands now, an unfamiliar reader is subjected to jumping around that undermines the ability of that reader to get a clear, straightfoward narative of the history. Specifically, in my mind, the sections (3.5 & 3.6 in the ToC) on FIDE's cycles should definitely be merged into the overall section on FIDE's control, or at the very least, follow it as subsections.

As someone relatively unfamiliar with the material, I don't feel I am the person who should he making these changes, but leave this note here specifically because I am the type of reader who would come to the article to learn from it. As it stands now, the article is just too disjointed to be of much help for that. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, of course any article has room for improvement. The 2 sections in the 1948-1963 and 1966-1972 formats are chronological, and show how events forced changes - and these 2 sections contain enough citations. I suggest most of "FIDE-controlled title (1948–1993)" be scrapped:
  • No ciations
  • WP:PEACOCK phrasing, e.g.:
    • "The winner of the 1948 tournament, Mikhail Botvinnik, would end up being a constant presence in championship matches for over ten years. His marked longevity at the top is generally explained by the fact that he was a tireless worker. It is said he perfected the game as a science, not a sport, through his emphasis on technique over tactics. This longevity is even more impressive considering he had hit his peak during World War II, during which international chess was suspended, and he was the first champion who was forced to play all his challengers" - B. struggled to hold the title, "generally explained by the fact that he was a tireless worker" needs citing or scrapping, "This longevity is even more impressive ...", etc.
    • "Fischer's dominance drew many parallels to the other famed American chess champion, Paul Morphy"
    • "Karpov dominated the 1970s and early 1980s with an incredible string of tournament successes" --Philcha (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that's the best tact. The two sections, while well cited, don't really paint as smooth and complete of a picture as they could, and indeed come off as a little too dry, focusing too much on the process of determining challengers and not enough on the people. While I see that that is the style and scope that you've advocated for before, I think that is a mistake, as this championship, by it's traditional nature as a championship won in head-to-head matchups, is a championship about the champions.
As for the "peacock" language, while a bit excessive in ammount, it is the sort of language that is common to sports writing. Many general interest sources, such as newspapers, often use such styles when writing about chess. I don't think that it's an inappropriate tone for the article, but it certainly shouldn't be overdone. In general, a merge would be better than a total deletion of the material. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stamma

Philipp Stamma (c.1705–1755), a native of Aleppo, Syria, later resident of England and France, was a chess master and a pioneer of modern chess. Why is he not mentioned at all in this article is beyond me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.146.141 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidates "tournaments"

Usage in this article and the cycle-specific articles derived from it (e.g. World Chess Championship 1969) persists in treating the series of matches to determine a world championship challenger, as were done from the 1966 cycle well into the 1980s, as though they were, quote unquote, "Candidates tournaments." This is clearly misleading and does not reflect the way those matches were organized and conducted. Each match had its own venue, sponsor, negotiations, etc., independent of the others. This is unlike both the actual Candidates tournaments of the 1950s, played as round robins among the Candidates, and the recent to contemporary "match-tournaments" where elimination matches were played as a single, co-located event like a tennis tournament.

It does no service to the reader unfamiliar with Candidates-cycle organization in the 1960s and 1970s to try to shoehorn the Candidates matches from those years into a uniform definition that doesn't fit. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fast chess

Should rapid and blitz championships be mentioned in the lead? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe they should, in the last paragraph, along with correspondence, perhaps teams (Olympiad) and perhaps problem composition and solving. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated section

I found that the article recounted the 1948-1975 period and then went backwards to go over the same history again. I have stitched together the two versions at the most obvious breakpoint. Some cleanup may be required here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.78.103 (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC) (Added later, now signed in: this was me. Nazdakka (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC))

Greco

Greco left Italy in 1620, and it was two or three years before he had faced and defeated the top players in Paris and London. Surely any claim to his status as the best should come after those matches and not before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.242.121 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering in Reigns of the champions

The table lists 13 undisputed champions, then it is interrupted by the seven FIDE and the two Classical champions, then restarts with #14. However, the numbering of the FIDE and Classical champions starts with 13! I think it would be clearer if these two tables started with #1, since they are for a certain time period which is specified. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, i think the FIDE champs shouldnt be numberized at all! Show me one source which numerizes the FIDE champs. Right now, it is OR. SteMicha (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to unnumber them. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
After the world championship in Chennai some of the press (As well as seemingly the official press release but I can't find a link to that) refered to Magnus Carlsen as being the 20th world champion. I think the numbering should either include all world champions, or be removed from the undisputed champions. The term "undisputed" comes from the fact that the title was split, coming up with a numbers for those disregards the split title champions.Fourtytwoplus (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia follows the content of reliable sources, and some of them describe Carlsen as the 16th undisputed world chess champion (example). Given that this is a fact, I don't see why it should be ignored. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Aren't the first two links above also reliable source? As long as different numbers are being used IMO numbering should either be removed, or have both numbers (one for the n-th undisputed champion, and one for the n-th chess world champion) Fourtytwoplus (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you are aware that non-specialist articles tend to contain many errors about chess. I would stick with professional chess sources such as ChessBase, ChessVibes, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Can you post a link to a ChessBase article about this? ChessVibes (that you brought in) has removed the numbering exactly because of the controversy, so this is actually an argument to remove it as well here. Fourtytwoplus (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
ChessVibes gives both versions. The "controversy" exists mainly because non-chess journalists are unaware of the fact that nobody takes FIDE's knockout circuses seriously. Some non-specialist sources that describe Carlsen as the 16th (undisputed) world chess champion: [2], [3] and [4]. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
ChessVibes had the number in the title, but removed it explicitly because of the controversy (they commented on this on twitter from their official twitter account). I struggle to understand what do you consider specialist/non-specialist sources. Can you cite specialists sources about this? After the end of the WCC championship in Chennai both 16th and 20th were used, by all kind of sources. I think there is no debate that we have 20 world chess champions, and 16 undisputed world champions, the question here is should only one of those two numbering sequences be mentioned in wikipedia. Fourtytwoplus (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Serkan Guler - World Champions by number of title match victories

I removed the entry that placed a player named Serkan Guler on top of this list. I did a quick search of the player but could not find any sources at all (not even close). If you think you have sources confirming the entry please feel free to revert my edit and add sources. christophe (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on World Chess Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

An interesting attempt to extend the list further back

can be found in this pair of ChessBase articles, recognising (dates are for their argued-for reigns as World Champion):

  • Philidor (1747–1795), taking the match against Stamma to be when he won the "title", and the end being his death
  • La Bourdonnais (1824–1840), from his London success to his death;
  • Staunton (1843–1851), from defeating Saint-Amant to the 1851 London tournament, won by
  • Anderssen (1851–1858, 1861–1866), who then would keep the title (retroactively awarded by Bird in 1893 anyway) until Morphy came along, and then regaining it when challenging Kolisch in 1861 since Morphy was no longer active;
  • Morphy (1858–1861)

and additionally recognising Steinitz from 1866 instead of 1886.

An interesting proposal, given where it was published. All five are indeed mentioned in the article. Still, I don't think this is any more than a curiosity. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Chess Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Enormous timeline graphic

Still far too large in my opinion. It dominates the article and the information density is far too low. I don't think most readers of the article will find it useful. Quale (talk)

Do you think it's too big? I could alter the parameters to reduce the size, but the x axis is already far too crowded to show all the detail. Remsense (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've shrunk the y-axis from 600px to 450px and it takes up a lot less space, now. Remsense (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In the section entitled "World Champions", tables list the world champions in the conventional way, one per line, with explicit dates. There is nothing wrong with that method of presentation; it is easy to read, and easy to look things up in, if one needs to.

The new graphic gives only one item of information not already in those tables, and has several additional problems: dates are not given explicitly, but must be extrapolated from the x-axis; it takes up more room on the page in spite of using smaller, harder to read, type; it is not in the back section, but up near the front of the article, where it distracts from the narrative.

The one thing that the new graphic has, but that the existing tables do not, is a black vertical line to represent every world championship match. I like the idea of having this information handy, but I think that a tabular format (i.e. one match per line, with dates, names of players, and result) would be better. What do you think? Bruce leverett (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the tabular method and the graphic method are both valid, and in fact, do well right next to each other! Having both in my opinion is the optimal solution. Perhaps the graph should go below the table, and not at the very head of the page? Remsense (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

As an analogy, having the table without the graph is somewhat akin to only having notation to describe a game in a book, with no diagrams. Not optimal, having both really helps people digest and understand the data. Remsense (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved the graph to the aforementioned World Champions section, to help summarize alongside the tables. I believe it fits well there. Remsense (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the graph to its proper place. I am still taken with the idea of having a table of all the WC matches, because one could then give the opponents' names and the scores, but with my limited home library, it will be a while before I can get around to that. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I still find the information density in the graphic to be extremely low and it's hard to read or extract anything useful from it. Dates are too hard to correlate to the bars on the graph and the black lines indicating matches don't give any useful information at all, such as who the match opponent was. The timeline graphic has no clickable links, so I consider the presentation to be antithetical to the wiki idea to begin with. A standard table is a much better way to show this information, and even {{World Chess Championships}} is a lot more useful. I'm afraid I'd still spike it as not being worth the space it uses. I do accept that other people might have a different opinion. Quale (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't like it. This type of thing makes sense in an article on a long-running music group, where you can see at a glance when the various personnel joined, who their bandmates were and for how long they stayed. But in a sporting event where the title is basically just passed from one to the next it seems redundant, and when it gets to the disputed title years it doesn't make things any easier to follow - it just looks confusing. It really serves no useful purpose here and should be removed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Although I would like to add (or see added) a tabular summary of all the WC matches, I concur with the assessments of this graphic by Quale and Pawnkingthree, and it would be OK with me if the graphic were removed. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The history of the WCC is not straightforward (1946, 1975, 1993) and I don't think 450 vertical pixels is enough to warrant the removal of the graphic, even if some might not find it useful, with preference to tables. Remsense (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I concur with those who seek removal. The table offers little, if any, additional information. Dates of tenure can be observed elsewhere, as can length of tenure. It is also the case (for me at least) that scrolling to the right loses connection with the list of names, so the colored bars can no longer be matched to the corresponding player, without awkwardly flicking back and forth. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Among the other issues mentioned, every two years this timeline graphic gets wider. Either the horizontal dimension increases, or it has to be shrunk further, and I already find it too hard to read at the current size. It's different with something like reigns of the Holy Roman Emperor—we're not minting any new ones, so the information is fixed forever and if you can find a good layout it's set. If kept this graphic will just get larger or more crowded over time. Quale (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Championship in 2015

The obvious question of why there isn't a championship every year is not answered by this article (for instance, there doesn't seem to have been one in 2015). Is there a rule for when (and where) it is to be held? --Mortense (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

Thanks for the question. It is not a simple picture, and this may be the reason why it's a bit jumbled up in the article, rather than being distilled into a clear statement of fact. Historically, before the involvement of a world governing body (prior to 1948), champions defended their title against the highest bidding, most credible challengers, largely at their own discretion. This was unsatisfactory, and contests floundered due to a lack of sponsors, and the many broken promises and rejections that occurred, when incumbent champions blocked challengers for righteous, bogus, or self-serving reasons. Around 1946, rules were drawn up (eg. "The London Rules") and were embraced and modified by FIDE (the World Chess Federation), in order to stipulate precisely the conditions that must be met by the challenger. Moving on a few years, the modern day FIDE WCC has overcome political upheavals like re-unification, and is now settled on a 2-year cycle. This takes account of a practical timetable of events, including the holding of zonal tournaments all over the world, other qualifying tournaments like the World Cup and Grand Prix, and of course, the Candidates tournament. Naturally, periods for rest and preparation between events have been allowed for, and some care is taken not to clash or overlap with other important or prestigious events. A one year cycle would not be practical in this context. This table by Mark Weeks shows the recent 2-year WCC cycles in the left column [5]. As for where WCC events are held, it is nowadays common for FIDE to insist on accepting the highest bidder, although this is sometimes challenged, for example, where the politics of rival nations cause friction with the players, or where concerns are expressed about player safety. I hope that is of some help. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Anand is not the current World Champion...right?!?!

According to the timeline at the bottom of the article, Anand became the undisputed World Champion, and has held that title for a few years now. Surely that's incorrect, right? I don't know if it's a typo in the timeline section, or someone playing around to show that the Indian player is World Champion. Furthermore, I don't have the exact information needed to correct that section, so I'm simply pointing it out for others to see. Chas (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

It looks correct to me, with Carlsen at the end. Perhaps it's simply that the timeline needs to be scrolled left-to-right, but not by much, so that it might look like it's finished before it actually is. (Note that I'm writing on my phone, where the need to scroll is much greater; I will check it on my computer later.) Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
@Chasdenonno: Yeah, I see the problem: the timeline only barely needs a scrollbar. My screen resolution is 1366×768, so I still at least see the beginning of Carlsen's bar, but with something slightly smaller it's quite likely that even that would be chopped off. I'm not sure how this could be resolved, though. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Karpov's style

Sure he was mostly a "positional player", but he played many brilliant games as well, e.g. Tatai-Karpov 1977, Karpov-Topalov 1994, and he was capable of swindling his opponents in mad tactical scraps when the position called for it, e.g. Karpov-Csom 1977. The comments on his "boa constrictor" style are simplistic and reductive. Nor was Kasparov a pure tactician or attacker, he could boa constrict with the best of them. In addition, none of these descriptions are sourced, making them original research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the "boa constrictor" metaphor is not what one expects in an encyclopedia. In Anatoly Karpov, I see that it is taken directly from an article in the Guardian (and the authors may have gotten it from elsewhere -- I can't tell). It may even be a popular metaphor, but that doesn't make it better for us to use, it just makes it more hackneyed.
Anatoly Karpov also quotes Karpov describing his own style as positional (our article lifts this quote from Hooper and Whyld, who do not give a source for it).
Looking at this article, it occurs to me that we are laying it on too thick, and we should just drop the last two sentences of the first paragraph about Karpov. ("His boa constrictor style ... grinding his way to victory.") The first sentence of the next paragraph says all that needs to be said about playing styles. The first paragraph then becomes rather short, and perhaps a player of Karpov's stature ought to get somewhat more, but I'm not sure exactly what. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think a better way to add to the Karpov section is to expand on the matches. I can think of a few things: the switch to unlimited matches (first to 6 wins); the cold war rivalry with Korchnoi; and the drama of the unfinished 1984 match. Adpete (talk)
I agree, we should certainly be mentioning those things in this section. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Why was there a WC in 2013?

New user here, sorry if I screw anything up... I asked this in: Development of the World Chess Championship, but it's also unclear here.

This article says: "These have followed a 2-year cycle: qualification for the Candidates in the odd year, the Candidates tournament early in the even year, and World Championship match late in the even year."

2013 is not an even year.


Development of the WCC article says: "FIDE has announced that after that, there will be a championship cycle every two years, beginning with the World Chess Championship 2012"

So then why the very next year Vishy had to defend against Magnus? Then in 2014 (that makes WC three years in a row) Magnus had to defend, and then it goes back to the quoted 2 year cycle. Seems 2013 was just thrown in there for no obvious reason? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.86.216 (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Carlsen withdrew from the 2008–12 cycle in protest against its length and the rule changes partway within it (as well as the defending champion's privileges, but those are still present today; Carlsen as champion has still sometimes expressed preferences for a different format that would resolve this, but after the schism of 1993 I think we all know how most of the chess world would receive such a thing). This seems to have contributed to FIDE's shortening of the cycle, which created inconsistencies that were only ironed out by 2014. Double sharp (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
It was because the 2012 and 2013 cycles got delayed for a variety of reasons:
  • Candidates qualifying in 2008-2010, Candidates May 2011, WC Match May 2012
  • Candidates qualifying in 2010-2011 (Jan 2012 in fact), Candidates March 2013, WC Match Nov 2013
  • Candidates qualifying in 2012-2013, Candidates March 2014, WC Match Nov 2014

So the Candidates qualifying events (World Cup, Grand Prix, Rating list) were already on a 2 year cycle all the way back to about 2010. But the Candidates and WC matches got held up for a variety of reasons, creating a backlog, which was caught up by having matches in 3 consecutive years (2012, 2013, 2014). Adpete (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to turn Development of the World Chess Championship into a redirect to World Chess Championship

See discussion at Talk:Development_of_the_World_Chess_Championship#Proposal_to_turn_this_into_a_redirect_to_World_Chess_Championship and offer opinions if you have any. Adpete (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

no mention of wesley so, huhu

(for now) Thewriter006 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship 2019, I would say that chess variants are out of the scope of this article. P-K3 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that it's administered by FIDE, I think a passing mention is ok; I'd say it's as least as relevant as the mention of World Computer Chess Championship in the lead. Adpete (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

2015

Any word on the 2015 chess championship? 2015 is nearly over and there doesn't seem to be much about it. Dorklestein (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There wasn't one. The schedule has settled on a two-year cycle with championships in even years only: previous hiccups like the presence of a 2013 championship were due to the effects of the 2006 reunification of the title. Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
{Double sharp (talk · contribs) I am going to add your sentence to the article: "The schedule has settled on a two-year cycle with championships in even years only". I came to this Wiki article specifically looking for how often it is held, and I couldn't find the information anywhere. I think it should be at the top. Cstanford.math (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Cstanford.math: No problem, thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
(My correction; the hiccup of 2013 was not a direct result of the reunification, as those ended in 2010. It came from the shortening of the world championship cycle, which at one point resulted in two simultaneous cycles going on: a long one from 2008 to 2012 and a short one from 2011 to 2013. Things have since settled down on a two-year cycle; barring further mishaps, the next World Chess Championship will be in 2020.) Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Well that aged well... Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

haha, I just saw that. I think you did well, because you included the phrase "barring further mishaps". Yes we indeed had "further mishaps" in 2020 :) Adpete (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Information about the actual championship format?

As interesting as the history of the Championship is, I came to this article looking for quick information about how the games in the championship goes, how many games they play, what happens if they draw all their games, etc.. I'm assuming that info is in the history sections somewhere but it seems like it should be part of the introductory section.

It's different for every Championship. It's not like some other sports, like baseball with its World Series, where the format has been the same for over a hundred years. Chess hasn't had that kind of stability. So we're limited in what we can say in the introductory section. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Just the other day I was thinking of merging List of World Chess Championships to here, and I think that would help. The article isn't too long. We currently list all the champions in 3 different ways in sections 2 and 3, but nowhere list all the matches, and I think that is the wrong balance. Adpete (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a fair point though. I've added a "Format" section. Adpete (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Some OR in the unofficial section

I am going to remove this:

The first known proposal that a contest should be defined in advance as being for recognition as the world's best player was by Ludwig Bledow in a letter to Tassilo von der Lasa, written in 1846 and published in the Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1848: "... the winner of the battle in Paris [in 1843, when Staunton defeated St. Amant] should not be overly proud of his special position, since it is in Trier that the crown will first be awarded." This was in reference to a proposed tournament to be held in Trier, where von de Lasa resided; but Bledow died in 1846 and the proposed tournament did not take place.[6]

The problem, apart from it using a primary source (so it is probably only "first known" to the WP editor who added it, now sadly deceased I believe), is that it is contradicted in the previous paragraph, which says that the 1843 Staunton - St. Amant match was also known beforehand to be for world's best player:

A letter quoted in The Times on 16 November 1843, but probably written before that, described the second Staunton vs Saint-Amant match, played in Paris in November–December 1843, as being for "the golden sceptre of Philidor."

So there's a bit too much WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY there and I am going to trim it. Adpete (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Petrov in Russia and Dubois in Italy had claims to being among the "world's best" at the time too, but they never played each other. Travel was difficult, railways were slow and dirty, and there were all sorts of political issues (wars etc). So the idea of gathering all the best players from various countries to determine a "world champion" simply wasn't practical. Even London 1851 left out arguably the best German player, von der Lasa. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is very important that we rely on secondary sources here, i.e. accepted chess experts, and not our own reading of primary sources. The article gives 3 sources that Anderssen was unofficial WCC (Bird, Horowitz and Fine), but Bird is from the late 19th century, and even Horowitz and Fine are close to 50 years ago. Does modern scholarship paint a more ambiguous picture and say von der Lasa -- or someone else -- has similar claims to Anderssen as world's leading player from 1851 to 1858? It would be good to add some quality modern secondary sources. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I finally removed it in this edit [7]. Adpete (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I think List of World Chess Championships should be merged to here. See comment in above section. There is enough room, and I think it is at least as important to list all the matches as it is to list all the champions. Currently the champions are listed in 3 different ways in sections 2-3, but the matches are not listed at all, and I think that balance is wrong. We could probably also remove the list of "World Champions by number of title match victories", which is duplicated at Comparison of top chess players throughout history anyway. If you look at the article histories, you will see that List of World Chess Championships existed before World Chess Championship, which might explain why it's two different articles. Adpete (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this proposal.
As you may have noted from Archive 2 of this talk page, I am not a fan of the timeline graphic. When I complained about that, I was not aware that there was already a list article with the information I was interested in. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that is a separate issue. That previous discussion has 4 different editors voting against (you, Quale, Pawnkingthree and Brittle Heaven) and only 1 editor, the graphic's creator, in favour. I am not a fan of the graphic either, though my objection is mild. But given the choice between representing the timeline of champions in 2 different ways (table and graphic), and having 1 representation each of champions and matches (i.e. one table for champions and one table for matches); I would prefer the latter. Adpete (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A merged article would be WP:TOOBIG. Sun Creator(talk) 17:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it would. The WP:TOOBIG guideline (50k maybe too big, 60k probably, 100k almost certainly) applies to readable prose, and using the Wikipedia:Prosesize tool gives 37kb "readable prose size" for World Chess Championship:
Document statistics (more information):
HTML document size: 377 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 61 kB
References (including all HTML code): 84 kB
Wiki text: 88 kB
Prose size (text only): 37 kB (6151 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 13 kB
Adpete (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The list is far too long for this article. According to the manual of style, Wikipedia articles that aren't lists should be written primarily in prose. If we add the whole List of World Chess Championships to this article, we'll be violating the prose requirement. Long lists like that are much better when kept separate from prose articles, so keeping it spun off as it is now corresponds well to our current policy on the matter.Hadassah16 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Numbering of world champions

I'm confused. If Kramnik is 14/19, why isn't Anand 15/20 and Carlsen 16/21? Bruce leverett (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe just get rid of numbering altogether, after all the FIDE/Classical nonsense of the 90s and 00s. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The answer is Anand is 15 under both systems because he won the FIDE title in 2000 and later the undisputed title in 2007. But I agree with removing the numbering. In fact when I eventually move the list of matches here (see above proposal), I think it will make the table of champions redundant, except for the very early unofficial champions before any recorded matches (i.e, Deschapelles and earlier). Adpete (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I see that you are doing with Anand what we also did with Alekhine and Botvinnik, who had multiple spans as champion. This is highly unconventional. The normal way to handle it is the way that the U.S. Presidents are handled: Grover Cleveland was both 22nd and 24th. Is there some WP:RS that handles it the way we are handling it? If so then I suppose there is an excuse. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it is the other way around: most numbering schemes count people only once, and US Presidents is one of the few exceptions to this. For instance in my own country, Scott Morrison is both the 30th person to be prime minister and the 30th Prime Minister of Australia, as confirmed by his official page, despite several of his predecessors having had more than one stint in office. As for chess, here is one example from the three Ks: "As the 12th [Karpov], 13th [Kasparov], and 14th [Kramnik] World Chess Champions, we are writing jointly..." [8]; and I have seen others also. I don't think I have ever seen a reliable source calling Karpov the 15th world champion and Kasparov the 16th; some might exist, but I am pretty confident they would be in the minority. I'd be even happier just removing the numbering altogether though, as I said above. Adpete (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I must admit, your Prime Ministers of Australia equals my Presidents of the United States. But yes, removing the numbering altogether (for World Champions of Chess, not the Prime Ministers or Presidents) would be fine with me. Perhaps partly due to the interval of split World Championships, people don't often use numbering any more (except in the joint letter that you linked to), at least not that I am aware of, whereas here in the U.S., people often refer to George W. Bush as "43", to distinguish him from his father, or perhaps just for the silliness of it. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah there are 4 different possibilities: Carlsen can be either #16 (Classical), #20 (FIDE), #19 (Classical with double counting) or #25 (FIDE with double counting). It gets a bit crazy so I will remove it when I get the time, if someone else doesn't first. Adpete (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone actually do double counting? Google News suggests that "13th World Chess Champion" always means Kasparov, not Spassky.
Similar searches suggest that "16th World Chess Champion" is generally agreed to mean Carlsen, and that it seems that most sources' attitude towards the FIDE championship is to simply forget that it had ever happened and only recognise the Classical championships as legitimate. On this basis I restored it to how it was early this year with only the Classical champions numbered: because it seems that if you see numbers around, this is the way in which they're counted. Double sharp (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Most of those hits aren't about Carlsen being 16th WC, e.g. one of them is about Awonder Liang finishing "16th" in a tournament [9]. If you add quotes for the exact phrase, i.e . put '"16th world chess champion" Carlsen' into Google News, you get zero hits. But anyway, Google News is a very poor guide. We should be using Google web search, and then be very discerning and only look at reliable sources, and I am seeing very few. Plenty call him 16th undisputed world champion e.g. [10] On top of that, the numbering (if there is no explanation) directly contradicts the tables in the article, so you've got to have a really good reason for doing that, though maybe if we remove the numbering from the Classical champs 1993-2006 table (which I have just done) it's not so bad. Adpete (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
p.s. While talking about the tables, can we remove the ages? About half of them are wrong (literally half: they are wrong any time a player's birthday is later than the WC match). Adpete (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at it, I agree with removing the champions' ages. It is totally trivial. oknazevad (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Removed the ages.
OK, fair enough about Google News. I'm OK with just numbering the undisputed ones, as that seems to be the common practice. (Which amounts to the same thing since the only Classical world champions were also undisputed.) Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
It's an inherent problem with tables: they can only display limited information, and it is rather hard to put all the fine points and debates in the tables. What we have now is an ok compromise, but if more people argue for removing the numbers I might support that in future! Oh and thanks for removing the ages. Adpete (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the joint letter from Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik linked above, I think this was a case where the number was being used to make a point. This was from 2001 and was specifically about the split title. So it's very significant indeed that Karpov, Kasparov, and Kramnik called themselves the 12th, 13th, and 14th World Champions here, because considering Kramnik to be Kasparov's immediate successor implies non-recognition of the FIDE-only champions. So I suspect that sources that give a numbering might have been more numerous when it actually mattered (i.e. the thirteen-year era of the split title). Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mis-citing sources?

The article says that the work on creating a format for WCh events "resulted in the 1889 tournament in New York to select a challenger for Steinitz, rather like the more recent Candidates Tournaments."

That is incorrect. The cited Ref. 23 should make that clear: Steinitz stepped down, as the winner of the tournament would become WCh, subject only to any challenges from the other top players in the tournament, or, if they refused, just possibly a challenge from Steinitz himself, under rule 10 of the tournament regulations, which could only be for a shared title (Rule 10: "If a non-contestant desires to challenge for the Fellow-championship, ...")

The long quotation from Steinitz that starts on p. 5 of the cited paper should make that clear, as Steinitz says "... the ultimate winner, provided that he fulfils all the conditions of the Committee shall have my most loyal support for his Champion title to which I shall lay no claim until perhaps, I may be able to recover it in another contest at a later period."Athulin (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Added: And I see also that Ref. 23 is said to be based on Landsberger ... which is odd, as it is states explicitly that "The biographical material published by Kurt Landsberger shed no light on this particular question".

Athulin (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I will look into this later. But for now, I have moved the section to the end, where it is more likely to be seen. Adpete (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Time control?

If I skimmed the article correctly, there's very little mention of the format of the championship match itself. I think the article would benefit from some additions to the "Format" section of the article: an explanation of the history of the time control of the championship match (including the current time control) and the number of games, and perhaps also some important details like tiebreaking. Macoroni (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, though this would require quite some work, especially for the pre-FIDE championships. Double sharp (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Chess_Championship/Archive_2&oldid=1179572486"