Talk:World Chess Championship 2014

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 September 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

A news item involving World Chess Championship 2014 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 November 2014.

Wikipedia

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Sicilian Defence#2.Nf3 without 3.d4: White.27s third move alternatives|Sicilian Defence, Canal-Sokolsky Attack]]
[[King's Indian Attack#Barcza System|King's Indian Attack]] The anchor (#Barcza System) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Delation of the page

Next WCC is in 2013 see Regulations for 2013 WCC

Langholz8 (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citations for WCC 2014 are all referenced -- particularly the rating average of July 2011 and January 2012. There are no references to support the combination of rating lists in the WCC 2013 article. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references says that FIDE will hold a WCC match in 2014? I didn't see it. Quale (talk) 07:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...it is correct, while the WCC 2013 article is not. --Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 page is obsolete. It should be deleted. The cycle http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates2012.pdf clearly states that the next wch will be in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddlj81 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t be naive! It will be held in 2014 if not at all in later year. It is impossible for the defending champion and the challenger to play two WCC matches in two following years. It will be hard to find sponsors for such speedy followed WCC matches as well. But we could notice that we know pretty well that FIDE has always some time lag. On the other hand, just realization of such events is the greatest success, what can be achieved for the world chess association. While Wikipedia should publish referenced plans and ideas (=sourced informations according released schedule) and not ilustrate the point (per WP:POINT and WP:ORACLES), hence we should not "supply" article with 2014 date, despite it is nearly certain future reality. --89.176.239.55 (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page from the FIDE website (http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/regscandidates2012.pdf) states that the world championship will take place in 2013. It is true that the match will probably take place in 2014, but since there is no evidence of this in a reliable source, I am redirecting this article to the 2013 article due to WP:CRYSTAL. It may be moved back to the 2014 article if an announcement is made on the FIDE website, or another reliable source, that the World Championship match will take place in 2014, but currently no such announcement has been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.73.66 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Oracle and Crystal is the same thing per Wikipedia guidelines.

Additional related articles are:

Chess World Cup 2011 - right now finished event

World Chess Championship 2012 - soon upcoming

I agree with created redirect to 2013, however, redirect, in fact, is not proper substitute of merging. It seems to me, that You dismissed 2014 page without merging content of articles. 2014 revisions history and 2013 revisions history. Maybe I overlooked something, but I suppose the content of both articles were not absolutely duplicated. There were some differences between them.

89.176.239.55 (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of World Chess Championship 2013

I added that the winner or the World Chess Championship 2013 will be Vishy Anand or Magnus Carlsen. Someone removed it due to WP:BALL. This makes no sense. The 2013 world championship will be played between Magnus Carlsen and Vishy Anand, and it is not speculating to say that one of them will win the match and be the defending World Champion. I see no reason it should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.139.8 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much WP:BALL, since there is no guarantee that either of them will not die in a plane crash, etc. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? In that case, why don't you delete the WCC 2013 article because there is no guarantee that either of them will not die in a plane crash? Or for that matter, delete the 2014 article because there is no guarantee that the world will not end? There are sources saying that the winner of the 2013 match will play in 2014, and that's what matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.139.8 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if this is an April Fool, Wikipedia:Rules for Fools - "Vandalism in mainspace will still be treated as such." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.139.8 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening details

Does anyone know source for opening in pairwise results? If there is any source I can update it, but I don't know sources Coderzombie (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found. Added. Coderzombie (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standings

Does anyone know what does "SB" column meant for in this table at official web-page of the tournament? Official Standings Page. Is it something we need to include in Wiki page as well? - 144.230.63.52 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Sonneborn-Berger Score. Steveg922 (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

chess tool in the Hebrew wikipedia

I wanted to show you what tool we use in the Hebrew wikipedia to show the games. [1]. You can also annotate the games using this tool, and the best is that the reader can sit down and see the game playing by itself like in the chess sites. You are invited to install the tool in the English wikipedia! --Yoavd (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. What is involved to do the installation? Is there a consensus to take advantage of this tool? Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoavd, how does one add your tool to this page? I have no idea what's involved. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 18:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed using this tool before, if I remember rightly it got caught up in the bureaucracy. Anything with scripts etc needs to be approved (by the WMF?) and nobody (so far) has been motivated enough to push for it. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne: wmf does not care one way or the other. in order to use this tool in enwiki, the editors in enwiki need to approve it. i think it was discussed twice in WP:VPT, and more times than that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess. see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/PGN Chess Viewer. i really do not know how to push this further. at one point, someone demanded to install the whole shebang on one of the test wikis - it took me significant amount of work, but it failed to generate the expected discussion. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

The timeline should be put in prose and then be moved between candidates and the actual match. Maybe someone tries something. -Koppapa (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Moves Across Two Lines

I'd like to ask for a consensus as to which set of moves reads better: Those for Game 3 vs. Game 4. Notice that in Game 3, several moves are split across two lines, making those two half-moves harder to read. In Game 4, there are no such breaks. Which is preferred? Once we have a consensus, we can make them all the same. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No such format in any chess articles (2012, 2013,...). Unneeded nbsp was removed by me. Also it was unreadable source code with that nbsp. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Favor. If 37.53.192.157 will allow Game 4 to be formatted with non-breaking spaces, instead of edit warring with me and violating the 3RR, then in my personal opinion, the article's moves are more readable. One doesn't have to look at the preceding line to see what move number it is. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting by nominator is forbidden. Also let's see any chess books. They were written without "nbsp option", almost already with format allowing the split of the half-moves. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the following 3RR Warning has been issued. I will thank 37.53.192.157 await a consensus before again violating the 3RR. At least please give others a chance to see the two versions. Also, I noticed that 37.53.192.157 has been editing only since today. I ask 37.53.192.157 to log in properly to avoid giving the appearance of sock-puppetry. Thanks. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User ArtSmart already violated 3RR rule two times today. He must be blocked. Note, no any consensus in favor of his source code. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus can be reached because 37.53.192.157's edit warring prevents other editors from seeing the version I have proposed. I have filed a 3RR complaint on the Administrators Noticeboard. 37.53.192.157 has reverted my edits 4 times, the last of which was after he duly received a 3RR warning. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 17:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User ArtSmart can use sandbox in his namespace to show his own version to reach the new consensus. Now consensus in all chess articles to show moves without nbsp option. 37.53.192.157 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this version: with nbsp. -Koppapa (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Koppapa, but after seeing that the Wikipedia admins don't enforce their own 3RR, I have now withdrawn my offer to go to all the time and effort to eliminate awkward line breaks. Please note that depending on the size of one's browser window, it is entirely possible for castling moves to end up with "0-" being at the end of one line and the remaining "0" being at the beginning of the next. Also please note on this page, which is linked from this very article, that no moves are split across two lines, giving a much more professional look than appears in this article. Again, thanks anyway, but my offer is withdrawn. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 07:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black and White

This may be the wrong page to raise this, but I see that since 2010, the players use the same colours in game six and game seven rather that alternating. What was the reason for the change and could an explanation be included either in this article or at World Chess Championship 2010? Tigerboy1966 19:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Games are played two at a time, then with a resting day before the next (game-game-rest-game-game-rest and so on). Alternating colors for each round is intuitively the fairest, and for the most part the match follows that format, but if colors alternated through the entire match with this schedule it would cause one player to always get White after the rest day. The switch at midpoint ensures that each player gets to be White after the resting day an equal number of times. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having the advantage of playing white first every two matches would be an advantage. As white wins more games than black, you would probably lead more often, gaining a (psycological) advantage. -Koppapa (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations. Tigerboy1966 21:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game 9 shortest game

Someone added the speculation that game 9 was one of the shortest wcc games. I have compiled all the games from classical wcc matches that are 20 moves or less:

Yeah. -Koppapa (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game 2

What I'm tring to convey here is that 34...h5??, bad though it was, was not the move that lost the game for Anand. The consensus among the commentators is that Black's position was lost anyway, so "possibly lost" is actually a rather conservative description. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why no World Chess Championship for 2015?

I suggest adding at least a sentence to the article explaining why there will be no 2015 World Chess Championship. I've Googled and Googled, and can't find an explanation. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 16:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]