Talk:World Chess Championship 2021

Dates and schedule

Hi, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/52cd2778e4b0b02edf9e4eed/t/5bb37eb715fcc0b1db2fb512/1538490075052/World+Chess+Championship_Bidding.pdf there is the dates and schedule for the match (on page 17). Can it be included now?211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Qualifiers by rating

I thought it might be easier to follow if ratings were offset from 2700, and then showed totals instead of averages, like this below. It is then clear to see that (at the moment) Ding has a clear lead, and Shak has to make up 24 points on Giri.

(Initially I tried offset by 2800, but I think the negative numbers complicated things). Adpete (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The following shows the ratings (offset by 2700) of the players leading the race to qualify by the 2019-2020 rating lists. FIDE Top 100 lists for 2019:

• February,
• March,
• April,
• May

The list shows all players averaging 2760 or more, except for world champion Magnus Carlsen, and the automatic qualifier Fabiano Caruana.

Player	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan 2020	Total
Ding Liren	112	112	109	105									438
Anish Giri	97	97	97	87									378
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov	90	90	93	81									354
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	80	75	73	80									308
Viswanathan Anand	79	79	74	74									306
Ian Nepomniachtchi	71	71	73	73									288
Alexander Grischuk	71	71	71	72									285
Levon Aronian	67	61	63	62									253
Wesley So	65	62	62	54									243

Photo M.Carlsen

In the first photo, Magnus Carlsen has the eyes closed. Do you see? ;-) Sirslayercort (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Wild Card

There is a bit of minor edit warring going on here so I thought I'd open the discussion.

First, who is eligible by rating? Regulations E and F say, in part:

E. 1 place – Highest Average FIDE Rating (Standard Rating Lists, Feb. 2019—Jan. 2020)

One place is reserved for the player with the highest average FIDE rating. For the purpose of deciding the qualifier, the average ELO rating from the twelve (12) FIDE Standard Rating Lists from February 2019 to January 2020 is used. In the event of a tie, the average is recalculated to the second decimal place. If the averages are still tied, the player with the greatest total number of rated games during the period earns the spot. If that player also qualifies via Clauses A, B, C or D or is GM Carlsen, the reserved place is awarded to the next non-qualifying player (based on the same criteria).

...

F. 1 place – Player nominated by the Organizer

The Organizer of the FIDE Candidates Tournament 2020 has the right to nominate a player who meets at least one of the following criteria (provided that he participates in at least two events listed below in b., c. and d.):

a. The player from the top-10 players by average FIDE rating as per Clause E;

Since Carlsen is specifically mentioned in part E, I think for the wild card to meet the rating criteria, he must be in the top 10 of all players, including Carlsen, by average rating. Also there is no mention of "non-qualifiers", it simply says top 10. I don't see any other way to read it.

Second, what do we display? I'm not really happy with the table in the wild card section, because it mixes players who are definitely eligible (MVL and Alekseenko) with players who will probably be eligible (the 5 from the rating list). But we do not want those 5 under "eligible for wild card" in the main table, unless we distinguish "eligible" and "likely to be eligible", or something like that. I can see the argument for including something like "likely to be eligible" because, in my opinion, the wild card seems likely to go to one of the highest rated players. Adpete (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally I don't think Wikipedia should be doing this kind of fine parsing of regulations as it strays into prohibited original research. I know everyone thinks the the regs are so clear that their interpretation is obviously correct, but these kinds of disputes suggest that it isn't always that simple. We have FIDE rules with disputed interpretation and add ratings data and then draw a conclusion not found in any source. That's WP:SYNTH. I recommend sticking to what WP:RS sources say about the qualifiers. If no reliable sources say anything about the qualifier status then Wikipedia should wait until one does and it can be sourced satisfactorily. Quale (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to my second point and not my first? I think we should state the regulations. But for the second point, yes, I'm pretty happy with that. Actually at one stage I deleted the table in the "Wild Card" section because I thought it was getting out of control with too much WP:OR, but it later reappeared; so I've concentrated on fixing it because that's easier than arguing for its removal. So you're suggesting leaving the main table as it currently is (MVL and Alekseenko are eligible - I've seen that in other sources e.g. here is a FIDE tweet about Alekseenko [1]); and in the wild card section, just state the regulations and why MVL and KA are eligible, and remove the table? Adpete (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't stray into OR, and I'm not particularly attached to the table in the wild card section. If something requires "fine parsing of regulations" open to interpretation and can't be sourced, it shouldn't be included.

However, not every disagreement indicates that fine parsing of regulations is required. That MVL and Alekseenko are already known to be eligible (since the relevant tournaments have already concluded) whereas no one is as yet eligible based on rating (since the required averages aren't known yet) follows very directly from the regulations; the fact that one user reverted twice because they apparently didn't understand this difference doesn't make it OR.

As regards Giri, Mamedyarov, Nepomniachtchi, Grischuk and So currently being in the eligible positions (without therefore already being eligible), I don't see that anyone so far has questioned this or suggested an interpretation of the regulations that would invalidate it (though of course I may have overlooked something). As long as no one disputes this, I think we can regard it as a fact that follows directly from the regulations and doesn't require OR. If someone does dispute it and supports this with a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, we should take it out; until then, I think we should leave it in -- whether in table form or otherwise. Joriki (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm mostly in agreement with both of you, and since I'm not going to edit this article and I believe the editors who do the work should have greater say, you can take my grains of salt as suggestions from perhaps a different point of view. To Adpete's question I agree that certainly the regulations should be included in the article. And to Joriki's point I also agree that just because someone disputes something on Wikipedia does not mean there's a real dispute. Sometimes people are simply mistaken, and very often a disagreement on Wikipedia does not indicate a real-world controversy. However, I think the act of interpreting FIDE regulations that are from source A and combining them with FIDE ratings which are from source B to claim a list of qualifiers is prohibited synthesis by definition. WP:SYNTH says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If it's really really really important for Wikipedia to record which players have qualified on rating then surely a WP:RS source can be found to cite. If no WP:RS sources are available it suggests that this really isn't so important to the rest of the world, so why would Wikipedia presume to do WP:OR to try to include it? One of my favorite things written by another editor many years ago was "The sources don't say what we want them to say." In this case it wasn't that any sources contradicted the claim, rather that it was a fairly simple claim that didn't appear to be published so it was difficult or impossible to justify including it in Wikipedia. If there are no sources that explicitly say which users have qualified on rating then I think that is the same situation as "the sources don't say what we want them to say". Quale (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. An encyclopedia shouldn't be an open blog nor a sort of almanac. Sophia91 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Another editor has but "TPD" for the wild card in the Candidates table, and I am ok with that, because it's anyone's guess who it will go to. Then there is the "Wild Card" section if someone really wants to look at the details. To be honest and I'm not wild about having the GP leaders in that table either, because the leader is not necessary the likely winner, if the leader has played more tournaments. It's rather different from including Giri as the likely ratings qualifier, because there are sources saying he is almost certain to qualify. Adpete (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't find any editor other than User:Claudiuan putting "TBD" for the wild card in the Candidates table, ever since I added the players eligible so far on October 21. (If I'm overlooking something, please link to the edit.) This editor has so far not engaged with any attempts to resolve the issue. Their edit summaries have provided either no reasons (here (incorrectly marked as a minor edit)) or clearly incorrect reasons (here: "There are 7 players eligible so far not 2. Either you put all or none." (again incorrectly marked as a minor edit, despite in fact being a disputed reversion) and here: "All others in top 10 are eligibile except SO. They cannot be surpassed, so either put them all or either none.") or vague reasons not related to the disputed content (here: "Putting only 2 created confusion" (again marked as a minor edit despite in fact being the fourth attempt to make a disputed change)). They also so far haven't responded to attempts to engage with them on their talk page.

Regarding "it's anyone's guess who it will go to": We're not guessing whom it will go to. (My guess, by the way, would be So (if he manages to end up 10th in the average ratings), after his upset against Carlsen in the FIDE World Fischer Random Chess Championship 2019.) We're stating the clear and relevant facts who is so far eligible for it. As you mentioned, there are sources for this, but even if there weren't, it follows very directly from the regulations, and no one has provided any interpretation of the regulations (or even remotely argued on the basis of the regulations) to indicate that it doesn't. People come to this article to get informed about the state of the tournament. The fact that a hitherto relatively unknown player like Alekseenko has become eligible for the wild card may be of considerable interest to them. It shouldn't be removed from the table just because a single editor insists on removing clear facts without engaging with arguments.

WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." How does that not describe precisely what is being done here? Quale (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to by "here". There are three separate issues here:

• The immediate issue raised by the four-fold reversion is: Should MVL and Alekseenko be listed as eligible for the wild card? This is not a WP:SYNTH issue – User:Adpete has already provided a FIDE source for Alekseenko, and here are two sources for MVL: 1, 2. No one has doubted that these two are eligible for the wild card. As far as User:Claudiuan has provided any reason at all for deleting them four times, it was not that these two are not eligible, but that others were also eligible, who are in fact not yet known to be eligible. Thus, if anyone is engaging in WP:OR on this particular issue, it is they.
• A second issue that we could discuss is whether these two should be included even if we didn't have single sources stating in one place that they are eligible. We don't have to go into that too deeply here (since we do in fact have such sources), but my take on it would be that they should, and that WP:SYNTH should not be applied too rigorously to immediate logical deductions because otherwise a huge part of Wikipedia would run afoul of it. Please take a look at WP:NOTSYNTH, in particular the sections "SYNTH is not a rigid rule", "SYNTH is not ubiquitous", "SYNTH is not a policy" and "SYNTH is not just any synthesis".
• A third issue is whether we should list who is currently in the eligible rating positions for the wild card. My take would be that we should, but it's here I think that the strongest case could be made that this might run afoul of WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, no one has made that case so far, and as long as no one does, I'd keep that information in, as it's clearly factual and correct, but if someone does, we'd need to reconsider.

Joriki (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I think your characterizations are correct, and I don't think there are any issues with listing the ratings leaders either. The Wildcard section needs some inline citations, but I don't see a problem with synthesis and I should not have challenged you or made you expend effort in defending against my misguided concern. As a minor point, putting the mod 2700 ratings in the table is weird and disorienting since those numbers do not look anything like FIDE ratings. The table should just use the actual FIDE ratings, then drop the sum column and show the average as the actual average FIDE rating. (There is an explicit provision in WP:OR that allows routine calculations such as computations of averages or unit conversions.) Quale (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The apology is much appreciated but not necessary. The rare satisfaction of rational discussion leading to agreement was well worth the effort expended :-) Joriki (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(unindent for slight change of topic) The problem with using averages rather than sums is that there is no feeling for what the margin is. Seeing that Giri has an 86 point lead over MVL is much more meaningful than saying his average is 8.6 higher, in opinion (though the calculation is trivial for this month only, because, the number of months is 10!). The "mod 2700" was my idea, and corresponds to how I do that sort of calculation in my head, but we can turn them into absolutes if you want. Adpete (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Mod 2700 makes sense for calculation but not for display in my opinion. If I were just doing data analysis I might do a delta of the sums with the leader set to 0 and everyone else getting a negative delta for their total minus the leading sum showing how far behind they are. But that's pretty hard to for a reader to understand, so do whatever you like. Once the ratings qualifier is determined I expect that the section will change or perhaps go away entirely. Quale (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I was also slightly irritated at first by the 2700 offset. However, I tried out how the table would look without it:

Player	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan 2020	Total	Average
Anish Giri	2797	2797	2797	2787	2779	2779	2779	2780	2780	2776			27851	2785.1
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	2780	2775	2773	2780	2779	2775	2778	2774	2774	2777			27765	2776.5
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov	2790	2790	2793	2781	2774	2765	2764	2767	2767	2772			27763	2776.3
Ian Nepomniachtchi	2771	2771	2773	2773	2775	2775	2774	2776	2776	2773			27737	2773.7
Viswanathan Anand	2779	2779	2774	2774	2767	2764	2756	2765	2765	2757			27680	2768.0
Alexander Grischuk	2771	2771	2771	2772	2775	2766	2759	2759	2759	2764			27667	2766.7
Wesley So	2765	2762	2762	2754	2754	2763	2776	2767	2767	2760			27630	2763.0
Levon Aronian	2767	2761	2763	2762	2752	2756	2765	2758	2758	2772			27614	2761.4

It's quite a bit harder to extract the relevant information at a glance because of all the irrelevant 27s. But if you feel it's less disorienting this way, I wouldn't protest if it's changed. I do think the sums should stay, though, because it's much easier to see e.g. what difference Aronian will have to maintain relative to So to make it into the top 10 from the sums than it would be from the averages.

I'm not sure how much harder it is to retrieve the relevant information at a glance since the individual entries are essentially irrelevant. There are 80 ratings in the table and each individual rating means almost nothing, the only thing that matters is the average or the sum. The only thing useful you can do with the individual ratings is add them across the rows to check the sums, so 85% of the table doesn't really convey much information to the reader except to make it possible to verify the math.

Player	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan 2020	Total	Average
Anish Giri	2797	2797	2797	2787	2779	2779	2779	2780	2780	2776			27851	2785.1
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave	2780	2775	2773	2780	2779	2775	2778	2774	2774	2777			27765 (−86)	2776.5
Shakhriyar Mamedyarov	2790	2790	2793	2781	2774	2765	2764	2767	2767	2772			27763 (−88)	2776.3
Ian Nepomniachtchi	2771	2771	2773	2773	2775	2775	2774	2776	2776	2773			27737 (−114)	2773.7
Viswanathan Anand	2779	2779	2774	2774	2767	2764	2756	2765	2765	2757			27680 (−171)	2768.0
Alexander Grischuk	2771	2771	2771	2772	2775	2766	2759	2759	2759	2764			27667 (−184)	2766.7
Wesley So	2765	2762	2762	2754	2754	2763	2776	2767	2767	2760			27630 (−221)	2763.0
Levon Aronian	2767	2761	2763	2762	2752	2756	2765	2758	2758	2772			27614 (−237)	2761.4

But really I'm not invested in this, and I should not have taken up this much of your or Adpete's time on it. Quale (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In the meantime, User:Adpete has removed the 2700 offset in the table. Joriki (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A correction to a false assertion made by User:Claudiuan in an edit summary: "Vachier Lagrave is not definetly the best non qualifier from World Cup. If he qualifies from Grand Prix, Yu Yangyi will be eligible for wild card from World Cup, and if both will qualify from grand Prix, the best non qualified from world cup will be someone from 5-8 position."

The first part is correct: MVL may qualify via the Grand Prix, and in that case Yu Yangyi will become eligible for the wild card. In a strict sense, MVL is thus not yet known to be eligible for the wild card; however, I think this subtlety is sufficiently covered in the text ("These two players are thus eligible for the wild card if they do not qualify by another method.") and need not be repeated in the table (though it could be if others find this necessary, that would still be far preferable to just deleting the information from the table).

The second part is incorrect. There are no positions 5-8 in the World Cup, just 4 players on an equal footing who got eliminated in the quarter finals. According to 2.1.F.b of the regulations, "if the third player is qualified - then the player placed fourth, but not any further" is eligible for the wild card. Joriki (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

New update on wild card selection criteria

Latest news on the way that the wildcard player for candidates is chosen, is announced today by Andrey Filatov, the president of the Russian Chess Federation. He clearly stated that wild card goes to a Russian player and not the others! reference

So maybe with the previous information from Fide, it was reasonable to keep Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, Anish Giri, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, and Wesley So names in the potential eligible players list for the wild card. But how about now? How can we ignore the new updates on the wild card criteria and insist on the wrong old information? How, for instance, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave can get the wild card while he is not Russian? Does he want to change his chess federation to Russia in the next two months? Thanks for the attention. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for bringing this up on the talk page so we can discuss it. We certainly shouldn't ignore this new information. In the edit I did after your edits, I left a paragraph in the article that describes the RCF announcement; I even added a direct quote from the announcement:

On 11 November 2019, Andrey Filatov, the president of the Russian Chess Federation, announced the intention to use the wild card to guarantee that a Russian player will participate in the Candidates Tournament, stating: "We’re still considering different options how we’ll choose a Russian wild-card but it will probably be a match or match-tournament with Kirill Alekseenko [...]."

If there is more from the announcement that you think needs to be included, we can consider adding it. What I don't think we should do is delete the information about who is eligible according to the FIDE regulations. FIDE defines who is eligible, i.e. which set of people the organizer (in this case the RCF) is allowed to chose from; the organizer then chooses one of these people. Announcements whom they intend to choose, or which criteria they intend to apply in making the choice (in this case, Russian nationality) don't affect the set of people from which they are allowed to choose. If this distinction doesn't come across clearly in the article, perhaps we should work on making it clearer. What we shouldn't do is only list the people that fulfill the criteria the RCF intends to apply (by the way, not in a formalized decision but in a press statement that explicitly states that it hasn't been fully decided how the wild card will be chosen) and not even mention whom they are allowed to chose according to the FIDE regulations (which, by contrast, are fully formalized and decided).

Joriki (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

They are/will be eligible, but very unlikely to be selected, so I think the main table should state that a Russian is likely to be chosen. Alekseenko is already eligible and Grischuk and Nepo will almost certainly be eligible unless they qualify anyway via the GP. By my reading of the GP article, the only other Russian with any chance is Karjakin, who has a faint mathematical chance if he sweeps through the final GP, but even that chance will disappear if MVL wins his current (3rd GP) match with Grischuk. My opinion is do this in the Wild Card Section:

• The first para gives the regulations (unchanged).
• The second para says MVL and KA are eligible (unchanged).
• The third para is modified to name the 5 players who almost certainly be eligible.
• The 4th para gives the Russian Federation decision. We then add that it is almost certainly going to be one of KA, Grischuk or Nepo.
• We delete the table, because that is "undue weight". The section should end with the Russian Federation decision and its ramifications. Adpete (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree (and you're right about Karjakin and the Grand Prix) – just one point: There are not 5 players who will almost certainly be eligible by average rating. It's not clear yet who will be in tenth place – So is in tenth place in the sum up to November, but if Aronian keeps his edge over So in the ratings for December and January, he will overtake him. (In November the difference was 12 points in favour of Aronian, and the difference in their sums up to November is only 16 points in favour of So.) Joriki (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

True. I have just realised that a Russian only needs to come third in the Grand Prix to be eligible for the wild card. So Dubov still has a chance if he wins the 3rd GP tournament, and Karjakin and Jakovenko will still have a chance if they win the 4th GP tournament and collect enough bonus points. But they are all fairly unlikely because they need some other results to go their way. Adpete (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I was just going to add more details about the Grand Prix and got an edit conflict with your message :-). I agree with everything you wrote. What you'd written further up about Karjakin applied to direct qualification via the Grand Prix, not to eligibility for the wild card. Joriki (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently I misunderstood you, Adpete. I thought that by "the main table should state that a Russian is likely to be chosen" you meant that this information should be added to the main table. You've now deleted the information we had about which players are eligible according to the FIDE regulations. I don't think we should do that. Now the RCF announcement has undue weight by being the only thing mentioned in the main table, even though it's just a non-binding future intention announced by a national federation, while the fully formalized, binding rules of the international organization for who is eligible are not mentioned.

A further aspect to be considered: It's not entirely clear to me from the press statement what happens if a Russian player qualifies via the Grand Prix. It's even possible (not terribly likely, but also not very unlikely – it will become either impossible or quite likely today or tomorrow) that both Grischuk and Nepomniachtchi will qualify via the Grand Prix. Alekseenko would then be the only Russian eligible for the wild card, so there would be no tournament. The announcement says that "the decision to host this event in Russia guarantees that there will be a Russian player participating". If there is already a Russian (quite likely) or even two Russians (still possible) participating, this sentence no longer applies. It's not entirely clear from the statement whether the second sentence about the tournament stands on its own (i.e. they will choose a Russian player as the wild card, no matter what) or is an explanation of the first sentence specifying how a Russian player would be chosen in case this is necessary to guarantee that a Russian player participates. I think it would be quite bad PR for the RCF if Grischuk and Nepomniachtchi were already qualified and they choose Alekseenko explicitly because he's Russian (so 3 out of 8 players would then be Russian) while denying MVL the chance. This scenario highlights that we should view this announcement as what it is – a non-binding, non-formalized announcement of a future intention – and not weight it above the fixed, formalized rules of the international governing body. Joriki (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice discussion. It's never easy to predict, but it seems MVL qualifies via Grand Prix. And at least one Russian will be in the top three of Grand Prix (as a direct qualifier or the top non-qualifier). So many doubts about wild card selection process will disappear soon. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 08:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's very likely that at least one Russian will be in the top three, but it's not certain yet. If Wojtaszek, So or Topalov gets a lot of points in Jerusalem (at least 9, 10 or 11, respectively), and Mamedyarov and MVL also get a few points, and Grischuk loses today and neither he nor Nepomniachtchi gets more than a few points in Jerusalem, three non-Russians could overtake the two Russians. If Grischuk wins today, this will become even more unlikely, since in that case So and Topalov could no longer overtake him and Wojtaszek would need a perfect score of 12 in Jerusalem to do so, but it would still not be impossible. Joriki (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have moderated the language in the table a little, and made clearer the link to the eligibility. But for the main table, where we are restricted to just a few words, I think the practicality (almost certainly a Russian) should trump the technicality (MVL or Alekseenko is all we know for certain). Adpete (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Another thought about Russian players and the wild card: Grischuk is now highly likely to qualify via the Grand Prix, and it's quite possible that Nepomniachtchi will also qualify. Giri was born in Russia and started playing chess there before moving to Japan at the age of 8; I couldn't find any information on whether he retained his Russian citizenship. So 2½ Russians may already have qualified for the Candidates Tournament when the wild card gets picked. Joriki (talk) 11:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Slightly misleading remark in article about Carlsen's attitude toward venue

Carlsen's team did indeed express reluctance to play in Stavanger. But, it was also expressed that Oslo (and maybe some other place near Oslo) might have been a better place for him. The Norwegian chess federation opted for Stavanger as their candidate earlier, you see, from national candidates including Oslo. Carlsen hails from near Oslo so it is kind of logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:999:2:4372:4DB1:1EAC:E11:FFBB (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you will need to find a reference to support this, because that is not what the existing references say. The chess.com reference says, "the Carlsen camp for the first time gave insight as to why the world champion has been against playing in Norway".[2]. The Norway Chess press release says, "Magnus Carlsen, is hesitant to play a championship match in Norway. Carlsen believes that the pressure will be too big in his home country."[3] Adpete (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Giri may officially qualify by 1st of December

It seems if MVL cannot qualify for Grand Chess Tour Finals in London; then there will not be any mathematical way that MVL can overtake Giri top position by 1st of January (Both only play in 4th Grand Prix in December). So Giri candidate spot may be officially confirmed by the next Fide ranking of 1st of December. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If FIDE says it officially, then it should go in. But I don't think WP should be declaring whether it is mathematically possible or not. I'd rather quote reliable sources. But even without an official announcement, at least one reliable source (Leonard Barden) has already decided it will be Giri [4] (Oct 4) [5] (Oct 25). Adpete (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Now Anish Giri officially qualified for the Candidates

By having Jerusalem FIDE Grand Prix as the last classical chess matches of 2019 for Anish Giri, Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov; Anish Giri has already been qualified for Candidates. If even, we neglect some reliable sources like chess24.com that clearly confirmed Anish qualification for the candidates; we can easily calculate that there won't be any scenario that MVL or Mamedyarov can pass Giri in ranking!

• Current live rating of three players: (MVL: 2777, Mamedyarov: 2770, Giri: 2767.8)
• Live Giri and MVL difference in yearly Elo rating: +76.8 in favor of Giri
• Live Giri and Mamedyarov difference in yearly elo rating: +85.8 in favor of Giri

• Best possible scenario for MVL in Jerusalem FIDE Grand Prix:
  • QF: 2 classical-game wins vs. Wojtaszek (2725): +8.4
  • SF: 2 classical-game wins vs. Nepomniachtchi (2767): +9.6
  • F: 2 classical-game wins vs. Mamedyarov (2772): +9.8
  • Sum of the elo rating change: +27.8

• Best possible scenario for Mamedyarov in Jerusalem FIDE Grand Prix:
  • QF: 2 classical-game wins vs. Hao (2756): +9.6
  • SF: 2 classical-game wins vs. Giri (2769): +10
  • F: 2 classical-game wins vs. Vachier-Lagrave (2780): +10.2
  • Sum of the elo rating change: +29.8

• Worst possible scenario for Giri in Jerusalem FIDE Grand Prix:
  • QF: 2 classical-game draws vs. Harikrishna (2724): -1.2
  • SF: 2 classical-game draws vs. Jakovenko (2698): -2
  • F: 2 classical-game losses vs. Gelfand (2684): -12.4
  • Sum of the elo rating change: -15.6

So there is no way that MVL and Mamedyarov can pass Giri in average 1-year rating list by 1st of January 2020, and Anish Giri has been qualified for Candidates..Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This seems a bit more like WP:OR than WP:CALC to me, but I'm not going to be the one to revert it – even without an ELO calculation it seems pretty clear that no one is going to gain a 75-point lead on Anish by January.

I do think you're misusing the word "officially" though (here and in your edit summaries). Unless I missed some official announcement (which would be quite surprising), he's not "officially" qualified. It's certain that he'll qualify according to your calculations – there's nothing official about that. It's not even quite right that he's "qualified" – just certain to qualify. Joriki (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone has now reverted this at FIDE Grand Prix 2019 (see this edit). As I said, I wouldn't have been the one to revert it, but since someone did and they're right and either they or you need to be reverted to make the two articles consistent with each other, I've now reverted your change here. Joriki (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem for me. You can keep the old edit up to 1st of January. Maybe a miracle is going to happen! :) Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kirill Alekseenko and Anish Giri

Officially and by default, Kirill Alekseenko became the last player in the Candidates Tournament. The organizer is Russian and the Russian authorities made it unequivocally clear that they are going to choose the Russian qualifying player, it is written in this page in the Wild Card section and also the table indicates the same fact. Aleseenko is the only qualifying Russian player, therefore there is no doubt and there are enough facts to put him for wild card2601:1C0:CB01:2660:3C94:B944:657B:75C2 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Anish Giri

He is 75 lead over MVL (the next candidate with the highest rating). Since, it is only one month left and no major tournaments ahead for Christmas we can judge by the facts of this month: MVL played just a few classical games (one lost to Ian Nepo), most of them draws. There is no theoretical probability he can achieve 75 points to Anish Giri, not even 30, so I think the table at the top of the page is final. Please, bring your arguments here before you do any changes as it will be nonconstructive2601:1C0:CB01:2660:3C94:B944:657B:75C2 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This is still WP:Original Research. Personally I agree Giri is virtually certain, but until we find a WP:Reliable Source saying Giri is certain, we should avoid saying that. For the wild card, we should wait for an official announcement. they said, "the decision to host this event in Russia guarantees that there will be a Russian player participating", which is not quite the same thing as saying "We will pick a Russian as the wild card"; it is possible (though not likely) that they will do something different now that two Russians have qualified via the GP. I have amended the table to say Giri and Alekseenko are "likely". Adpete (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Leonard Barden in The Guardian is a bit ambiguous. He said Alekeenko will be the wild card, but also leaves open the possibility of a change. He wrote: "The little-known 22-year-old ranks only No 37 in the world... If Nepomniachtchi wins the final, Alekseenko becomes the wildcard... the Russian chess federation president, Andrey Filatov, has already announced that the wildcard will be a Russian. However, it is obvious that if such a policy gives a place among the eight world title candidates to a player whose overall form is far below the other seven, there will be protests. If the policy changed and the wildcard choice became open to non-Russians, not only Vachier-Lagrave but also two highly rated previous candidates from Europe, Levon Aronian of Armenia and Shak Mamedyarov of Azerbaijan, would be eligible."[6] Adpete (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Adpete, why's Aronian missing from wildcard list in the article? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Because Wesley So is one point ahead of him at the moment. I guess we could add that Aronian may pass him when January ratings come out, but you can see that from the rating table anyway. Adpete (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Adpete Do you think that the Russian companies and the Russia's government who sponsor the Candidates Tournament, are flirting with the idea to bring non-Russian qualifiers? The rules have yet to be changed for that and the Russians will not sponsor it. Second, Alekseenko is an absolutely eligible qualifier according to the FIDE guidelines and the Russians do not breach any laws here. Objections by the other countries are actually speculative as there are rules. For example, I would prefer to see MVL instead of Anish Giri (MVL clearly plays better) but I cannot object it=))--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:4558:9485:7DE8:B45C (talk) 08:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your first sentence, I don't know. But until an official announcement is made, I think it is best to compromise and say Alekseenko is likely. Wikipedia should not say it is certain unless there are WP:Reliable sources saying it is certain. Adpete (talk) 09:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Adpete! I think it should be settled now as the Russian Chess Federation oficially confirmed it. The link is in the page (number 5) and here is the article:

https://ruchess.ru/en/news/all/andrey_filatov_kirill_alekseenko_to_get_wild_card_from_organizer_of_fide_candidates_tournament_/ --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:48A:D61C:30BA:9F7D (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's settled now. But I still prefer rating before wild card on the table, because that's how the rules are written -- the wild card is someone who does not qualify by rating, not the other way around. Adpete (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I just thought that there was a time chronology of the qualifying players and that was the only reason I moved the players. But it is not that important after all. Happy holidays!71.238.35.13 (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

P/S: I added some information on the French letter because it looked like the RCF does something not quite acceptable or dubiously legal. It is important to say that these are FIDE rules that allow an organizer to choose an eligible candidate for the wild card; otherwise it looks a bit biased and might make some readers think that it RCF does what it wants. Personally, (off the record), I would prefer to see all the non-qualifiers in a match for the wild card placement, including Anish Giri, MVL, Alekseenko and all the eligible wild card candidates and do kind of Grand Swiss Tournament between them but it doesn't seem realistic and this is just my opinion which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. 71.238.35.13 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

So, MVL got to play in the Candidates after all! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Russian flag

A bit of an edit war is emerging over the Russian flag next to Nepo's name. Leonard Barden has written "Fide, the global chess body, has since issued a statement confirming that, due to the Wada sanctions against Russia, Nepomniachtchi will not be allowed to play under the Russian flag in Dubai, and the Russian national anthem will not be played. The challenger will have to compete as a neutral player, using the Fide flag. The court of arbitration for sport directly clarified to Fide that these restrictions only apply to the world championship itself and not to any qualification events, including the just concluded Candidates." [7] However, in my opinion, the flags in Wikipedia chess articles only show a player's nationality, not the country they represent, so the flag should remain in. (But of course mention the issue in the article). Adpete (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC) There is a more complete source for the statement at chess.com: [8] Adpete (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's all just point scoring bullshit. We all know he's Russian, let him have his flag. It's not as if doping is a real issue in chess, that's just FIDE/IOC political stuff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't fully agree that "flags show a player's nationality, not the country they represent". I think flags do show the country they represent, but I also think that Nepomniachtchi will represent Russia even if there is no Russian flag at the table when he plays. When I look at https://ratings.fide.com/ and https://ratings.fide.com/profile/4168119 I see FIDE uses the Russian flag for Nepomniachtchi. There are peculiar circumstances surrounding the championship, but a doping scandal can't change the fact that he is Russian. Quale (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So is that a consensus to leave the flag in? Because another editor has now removed even the word "Russia". The FIDE statement clearly says the rules don't apply to other events, but do apply to the World Championship. But we are just a Wikipedia page providing information, not an official page. I think the best compromise is to have the flag or the word "Russia", with a footnote (as opposed to a reference) next to it; which I have now done. Adpete (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Whatever we do (display the flag or not) we're arguably taking a side on a piece of petty political point scoring and thereby violating WP:NPOV. I don't know what the answer is. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC) We have a precedent for not displaying a flag in World Chess Championship 1978, though the circumstances were very different. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My preference would be to use the flag and then explain the odd situation in article text. The challenger does represent the Chess Federation of Russia and he did not become un-Russian just because he will play a WC match. Unfortunately it seems likely that some editors will edit war over this, and so far they don't seem to have any inclination to discuss it here. If they aren't even willing to explain their position, they don't deserve to get their way. The alternative is to just capitulate, and I don't think that articles should be held hostage to the least objectionable thing that won't make anyone upset. That's just a race to the bottom. Quale (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. But in case, here is how to do a miniature FIDE flag: [[Image:Fidelogo.svg|23px]] (in line with Template:Flagicon which uses a 23 pixel width). Adpete (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the FIDE logo flag is what should be used, unfortunately the FIDE logo is only permissible for usage on the FIDE article itself, and can't be used as a flag until/unless it's non-free rationale is changed. Best, --Discographer (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Can I ask why an exception is being considered for this World Chess Championship when other sports' championships articles, for events held during the WADA ban, all do not show the Russian flag, and instead have it replaced by a neutral flag or the flag of the Russian sports federation for each respective sport? In my opinion, this article is no exception and that it should follow the example like in the other championship articles and not just leave the Russian flag in. We all know he is Russian, and during this event he just isn't allowed to compete under the Russian flag due to that WADA ban, but the article should reflect that like all the others. I'm not exactly sure how the "non-free rationale" stuff works as said by Discographer but if I recall correctly, the Russian Olympic Committee flag was in a similar situation until a file of it was uploaded or found that was allowed to be used as the flag in the Olympics articles, so can't we just do that with that FIDE flag? Also, here are some recent sports championships if you want to see how they did it: Luge, Bobsled, Skeleton, Biathlon, Short Track Speed Skating, Curling, and Ice Hockey -boldblazer (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the white flag with the blue circle surrounding a pyramid is on the press conference table? Is that a flag to use instead? Or maybe use FIDE flag using an old FIDE logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.230.160.102 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The flag definitely indicates representation more than citizenship. Citizenship often doesn't coincide with representation whether it be dual citizenship or the person being in a process of changing their citizenship. Also, in the Olympics, Northern Irish athletes are eligible for both the Republican or the UK team. The extent of doping in chess has nothing to do with it and is not a valid argument. It's a decision we simply have no control over, and it should be depicted neutrally here not matter how we feel. The same goes for unrecognized countries in the Olympics. We should keep it consistent.--2001:16B8:3132:7B00:6939:A554:C132:7BEB (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Spoilers

Could you PLEASE STOP showing the result of a game in the header of a game???

For people who haven't seen the game yet (including people in all time zones) it is a major spoiler to see the result when just looking for the moves.

The youtube video has insufferable commentary, so wikipedia had a chance to shine here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.169.3.195 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This request makes no sense. The article format is the standard for every chess championship article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a broadcasting venue, nor should it hide publicly available information about games that have finished. Fbergo (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The box score needs to be LABELED

The box at the upper right of the article with the large 1 for each player needs to be labeled as providing the latest score.

Otherwise it just looks like a couple of major typographical errors. 2601:200:C000:1A0:60F2:3C1B:B30B:3A76 (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is exactly the same format as any previous event in this series: World Chess Championship 2018, World Chess Championship 2016, and so on. Infoboxes are quick summaries; Whatever can't be understood from the infobox is properly described in the article body. Fbergo (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias against Russian sportspeople and its own rules violation

I thought there was a consensus reached above in the section "Russian flag" the Wikipedia is not WADA and has its own rules of showing flags for the sportspeople but it looks like we still have editors who are biased against Russian sportspeople. I checked the Infobox and found this strange statement (like someone right from the WADA committee and no one is allowed to edit because they break some important law):

DO NOT CHANGE TO THE RUSSIAN FLAG, it has been pointed out in the Sanctions against Russia section. -->

So, now the question is what sanctions are we talking about exactly here? Are the WADA sanctions, so since when Wikipedia started to be an organization under the WADA's rules? Or are these sanctions imposed by Wikipedia? For at least, I'd understand the logic if Nepo was one of the WADA violators but he never was caught on any doping violation.

I highly doubt so but I'd like to hear about it. In my humble opinion, I see another case of bias against Russia or incompetent confusion of WADA's sanctions and Wikipedia rules. My goal is to reach a clear consensus here and understand what is in Wikipedia that doesn't allow to show the Russian flag for the Russian sports events and how WADA sanctions impact Wikipedia's rules here. Also, I'd like to know if we are dealing with potential violation of neutrality, which might be the case here. All I want is clarification and the reasons for Wikipedia to follow this policy and which rules are effective here. I'd like to attract as many editors as possible to reach the final consensus and I'm also thinking to appeal for neutrality check if this discussion is not constructive. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We have to follow the practice of the reliable sources. They don't display a Russian flag next to Nepomniachtchi's name because according to FIDE, he is not representing Russia. Personally I'd be happy to see flags done away with altogether in sports articles. Their purpose seems to be to prettify the articles, but often they lead to all sorts of edit wars, and even potentially defame people. Poor old Sonja Graf, a German anti-Nazi, has the Nazi flag next to her name in Women's_World_Chess_Championship_1937_(Stockholm_olympiad), for example. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are the articles from the Guardian. which is undoubtedly a reliable source:

• https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/26/chess-carlsen-plans-fast-start-in-dubai-while-firouzja-captures-his-records
• https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/27/magnus-carlsen-draw-ian-nepomniachtchi-world-chess-championship-game-two
• https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/nov/28/carlsen-and-nepomniachtchi-world-chess-championship-2021-game-three

All of them say "Russian opponent or "a challenger from Russia". They don't say a word about CFR and it is clear to everyone that Nepo represents Russia. Also, the example of Sonja Graf is not good because she indeed represented Nazi Germany in 1937, even if she opposed it - she was still the citizen who represented her own state at that time. Another example, Firiouza, who actually refused to represent Iran and was under FIDE flag as he didn't have French citizenship until recently. As to Nepo, it is clear that he is proud of his country and didn't reject it, so the only issue here are sources, where I don't see any cleat consensus. I could bring 3 sources that show Nepo as representing Russia. It looks like we are down to the same issue of Wada's influence on Wikipedia pages in some strange way. Maybe, it would be a good idea to bring this particular page to the attention of the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Here is from the interview with the Guardian, where Nepo told:

"Those watching certainly saw an intriguing buildup to the match. When the Guardian asked Nepomniachtchi about the ban on his flag, which came about after Wada ruled that Russia had deliberately erased and manipulated doping data stored in a Moscow laboratory to stop its athletes being punished for taking banned drugs, he admitted he was disappointed.“The whole situation is really frustrating,” he said. “The country is technically not banned but the anthem and flag has to be replaced. So this is quite sad. But at the same time my patriotic feeling comes from inside.”

--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:A056:F425:465E:703F (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any of those articles displaying a Russian flag, or explicitly saying that Nepo is representing Russia. Despite what I wrote in a previous discussion, I've come to the view that wikipedia should reflect the sources, not the opinions of editors. We have a precedent in articles relating to the 2020 summer olympics such as 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, where Russian athletes were referred to as "ROC". I'm pretty sure any discussion at the NPOVN would reach the same conclusion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, do RS say they are representing (officially) Russia?Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

In Russian Wikipedia (ru:Матч за звание чемпиона мира по шахматам 2021) we use fair-use emblem of Chess Federation of Russia. I don't know what flag is used on this photo (https://www.ruchess.ru/en/news/all/game_two_of_carlsen_vs_nepomniachtchi_match_drawn/ - a news in English), but in any case it is better than using the Russian flag, because this shows the real flag "under which" Nepomniachtchi is playing. Of course any Wikipedia, including English, Russian and other, should explain why such a flag is used, although Nepomniachtchi himself is a chess player from Russia. Also the flag of Russia should be used when Candidates Tourament is mentioned. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

References to engines in game narratives

In complicated positions even the best human players are going to make mistakes. Many players deliberately steer the game into complicated positions for this very reason; they know they're not going to make 100% accurate moves and they don't care, because neither will their opponent. This was all well understood by good players well before engines, e.g. Bronstein "A game is not an analysis; everything must be figured out in the mind without moving the pieces, reference books may not be consulted, advice may not be sought". Human over the board chess is not a science, it is a fight.

This is why I don't like seeing frequent references to engines in narratives about human games, unless it reflects what's in the source. (It's also why I'm skeptical of attempts to measure players' absolute strength by comparing their moves with those of engines.) MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

But it (the references to engines saying Black is much better in the middle of game 2) is in the sources. Did you read them? Banedon (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I did, and they don't say black is "near winning", and neither the players nor the commentators thought so either. Shankland's commentaries are very good, they acknowledge that engines aren't everything and it is primarily a struggle between humans. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Shankland wrote that Black was much better, Chessbase said Black had winning chances, the cloud analysis by Stockfish 14 gives the position before 24...c3 as -1.3 which when translated into WDL (see [9]) is about 55% win 45% draw <1% loss or near winning since win is more probable than draw. I am pretty sure you can find GMs saying black was winning too at one point, although of course that is with the benefit of the engine running. I don't mind the text as it is, but would prefer including engine analysis more explicitly. Banedon (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Short descriptions inconsistent

Basically what the title says - this article's short description says "World chess championship match", the previous match says "World chess championship", 1981 says "Chess competition", and 1978 doesn't have a short description. Although there's doesn't actually need to be a short description for any of these.  AltoStev (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Now it says "FIDE annual event", but it isn't annual! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to "World chess championship" (like 2018), which is at least correct. OTOH, I guess that when the short description is literally a subset of the actual title, you hardly need it. Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This and other world championship articles could be candidates for WP:SDNONE. Surely the titles are self-descriptive? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Results table

How about removing the "Qualification" column from the table? It takes up too much space (it makes the table run off the right of my screen) and is mostly empty. Put a sentence below it that he advanced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the "Match Games" graphic

The "Match Games" graphic has Ian listed as playing black in Game 9. He was white. It seems to have the colors confused for one reason or another. EGarrett01 (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh? It was correct when you posted this. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

lichess round 3 most accurate?

are we going to include that lichess say round 3 is most accurate? https://twitter.com/lichess/status/1465654669053730825

Thewriter006 (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It has been beaten by round 7: https://lichess.org/blog/YavcNxEAACEAwQNV/carlsen-versus-nepomniachtchi-fide-world-championship-round-7  AltoStev (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should take such "records" too seriously. Who's to say the top software will be of the same opinion in 5 years time? Isn't a 12 move book draw "accurate" too? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase Tim Krabbé: the opening position is a draw, and so any move that does not change that is "perfect" in the tablebase sense. Therefore all book draws are perfect. ;) Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that article, and I like his quote about perfect games. "I don't even need a board to type the moves of a game that consists purely of perfect moves: 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.Bxd6 Qxd6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 b6 9.Nbd2 Bb7 and so on: the kind of game you sometimes see between weak club players. The Perfect Game is not worth looking at." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not all that bad. There must also be Perfect Games that look like Zaitsev vs Karpov 1966 and are therefore a whole lot more entertaining to watch. :) But we're wandering off topic, so: the point I was trying to make is that the "accuracy" is not important, since any game lacking serious mistakes is likely "perfect" in the game-theoretic sense too. Precisely which seems to be the most accurate now will, as you say, depend on what engine you're using to analyse it, since chess hasn't been solved. Double sharp (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Only if other WP:Reliable Sources comment on it. Otherwise it sounds to me like Lichess promoting themselves. I also agree with MaxBrowne2's comment. Adpete (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone smuggled the lichess analysis into the article via the five-thirtyeight blog. I am not pleased, but it's still sourced content. Maybe we can do a RFC and try to establish a consensus that such analysis is to be taken with a large grain of salt and shouldn't be included in the article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that the players are preparing their moves beforehand using computers (sometimes going past move 20), it is hardly surprising that most of their moves correspond to what computers recommend; in fact it would be surprising if the most accurate by that measure did not come from this match. But it is independently sourced (though strangely, to an article written before Game 11 was played) so I have no objection to it being briefly mentioned in a single paragraph. Adpete (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is for sure unsurprising that Stockfish 14 prefers for example the stale draw in game 10 that was no doubt prepared in advance using Stockfish 14, but this type of analysis does appear to be something people are interested in. I'm not sure it's actually necessary for us to discuss it in the article anyway, but I have directed the commentary on the FiveThirtyEight source more to the point. Plainsoup (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to dislike the term ACPL (average centi-pawn loss) already. It's a crude measure of game quality, the lowest ACPL games will always be book draws, and in any case the players will often make a move in full knowledge that it's (probably) "suboptimal" in the engine sense, for example to test the opponent in a prepared line, to create complications when behind in the match, to avoid complications when leading the match etc. It is a very poor meausure of the quality of an individual game. What it can do over many games is provide a picture of overall trends and tendencies, for example comparing the average ACPL per game of different players, or of players from different eras. I am highly resistant to saying "game X is the most accurate game of all time". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(unindent) @MaxBrowne2 I agree, but unfortunately we've got to go by WP:RS, not our opinions. I found a second independent reference to the Lichess article, albeit a brief one, in The Guardian: [10]; though it's assessment is more negative. Adpete (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ultimate all those claims can be sourced back to this, which is self-published. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Match regulations / Schedule incomplete information

The Match regulation section does not answer the question what happens if not all 14 games are played?

At least I assume the players aren't forced to play on after one has reached 7½ points. But the section does not say?

Then, would/will the closing ceremony still be held on the 15th? Effectively making several days in a row rest days? The Schedule section does not seem to have a provision for the closing ceremony being pushed earlier in time.

The current article leaves these questions unanswered.

CapnZapp (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: Indeed it did: hopefully my additions have answered this, though. Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

2.7-2.8 would be better as their own section titled "Results"

The article organization is difficult to navigate. Most viewers coming here are just interested in what happened in the match, i.e. a summary of game results with maybe a bit of commentary. It is hard to find that information as it is buried in irrelevant details (candidates tournament, regulations and organization, etc.)

Moving 2.7-2.8 to their own section, titled "Results", would keep all the existing material and narrative while making this much easier to find. It also reduces the deep level of nesting for this section. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nepo & Candidates Tournament 2022

@Double sharp: As you have quoted FIDE "As tradition goes, one spot will go directly to the runner-up at the FIDE World Championship Match..." - don't you think this rather supports "As the runner-up, Nepomniachtchi is set for..." over "As the runner-up, Nepomniachtchi qualified for...". Why do you prefer the latter wording? Calling the defeat a "qualification" may be regarded as a bit cynical. --KnightMove (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@KnightMove: Because FIDE on the page I quoted lists this among "qualifying events and criteria" / "qualification paths", so I thought we might as well adopt their wording. But if you think their wording gives the wrong impression, I won't object if you want to change it back to "set for". :) Double sharp (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that "is qualified" avoids this impression and is certainly the easiest consensus solution. --KnightMove (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Reaction

There was some controversy about Russian GM Daniil Dubov working as one of Carlsen's seconds. In particular, GM Sergey Karjakin, Carlsen's opponent in the 2016 world championship, tweeted criticism of the relationship:

Of course I congratulate a World Champion, but just a small remark. Imagine you have to play a World Championship match against Carlsen. Will you accept help from let's say...[Norwegian GMs] Hammer or Tari?"

needs more explanation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iancarlsen (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the comment should be removed from the article. Of all the 100s of reactions to this match, Karjakin's problem with Dubov is a sideshow. (I am happy with it going in the Daniil Dubov article though). Adpete (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I added an tag. Will remove the paragraph if left unimproved. CapnZapp (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have moved it to the "Seconds" section. In general I don't think a "Reactions" section is a good idea. What remains are two quotes on why Carlsen won / Nepo lost, but I'd rather those quotes were replaced (or enhanced by) other commentary. Adpete (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing against the move, but our coverage of the "controversy" is still way below par. "There was some controversy" just doesn't cut it.

What exactly is Karjakin's problem here? That Carlsen accepted help from a Russian GM? Why would that be a problem? That Dubov undermines Carlsen? Or perhaps that Dubov is a national traitor?

Unless this can be much more clearly expressed (and sourced!), I suggest we just remove this nonsense altogether. Wikipedia should not be a platform for ill-defined insinuations and vague malcontent!

Note we currently rely on primary sources and blogs. If we can't find better sources that is perhaps an indicator of a tempest in a teapot...?

CapnZapp (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning, and that chess24.com counts as a reliable source (not just a blog) on chess matters. But we need to write a summary, not just cut and paste two quotes. We could cut/paste the summary from Daniil Dubov (which I mainly wrote) but more could be added. Adpete (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Karpov and Anand have given their opinions on this too; as they're former World Champions, their opinions may be worth mentioning. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And it's on ChessBase. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Gelfand. Double sharp (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In case the link disappears in future, Gelfand was in support of Dubov. Adpete (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This section still only vaguely hints to what the issue is/was:

- "There was some controversy": don't use "some" - what was the controversy?

- "In particular" sounds reassuring but then [Karjakin] "tweeted criticism", followed by giving the complainer screen time for no apparent reason. Is it a "small remark" or is it something substantial? Then a hypothetical question that does not make clear the issue Karjakin is having.

- Other figures "joined in the criticism of Dubov for his work with Carlsen". What exactly is their problem?

The reader should not have to read between the lines, or infer an accusation from Dubov's defense. Our editorial voice should not defer to the voice of the accuser.

The notability is very weak, sourced by direct quotes. Where are the third-party sources that summarize the issue??

Since this hasn't been meaningfully improved, I will temporarily remove the passage. Please do add back once these issues has been resolved. CapnZapp (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Much better, Adpete! CapnZapp (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! There is definitely a controversy there, and I agree that a couple of quotes is not the way to cover it. Adpete (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

first mover schedule

Three games were never played. Is the identity of the "first movers" of those three games known? (After "Adi K. Mishra, ambassador to Algorand" that is) CapnZapp (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourced commentary being removed

Multiple times now, sourced commentary on Games 8 and 9 has been removed, despite it being re-added by multiple editors. I think it is important, so that the games are given context. It is not obvious to the casual reader that a 2-game advantage is almost insurmountable. Adpete (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on talk. If you can find a source discussing 2 point advantages in general (and I'm sure you can), we can add that to some general overview of the match, to explain why it can be hard to press yourself when you know how difficult coming back can be. But please don't add this (back) to the individual game! That's the issue We aren't writing an exciting narrative asking the reader "how will it end" - it makes our article read like an on-going event, which simply isn't encyclopedic. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, since this match wasn't defined by a 2 point lead - if anything it was defined by a 3 point lead - we have already covered this (see comparisons to Euwe and Steinitz). CapnZapp (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

And btw, just because something is sourced does not mean it deserves to stay on the page. Removing additions can be entirely fine even if they're sourced. Verifiability is just one criteria. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

A general source on 2 point advantages in would be the wrong thing to do, because every match is different (especially matches at very different times in history - the comparisons to Euwe and Steinitz have little relevance) and so applying a general source would be WP:SYNTHESIS. The right thing to do is say what the sources on this match say when Carlsen took a 2 point lead. And I just checked 5 sources on Game 8 (The Guardian, Chessbase, chess.com, chess24.com and The Week in Chess), and 4 out of 5 (all but chess24) used at least as strong language as the article does, saying it was difficult (or very difficult) for Nepo to win. So I think it is appropriate to put a summary of that in the article.

The other question is whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and I think it is. It is not about trying to make the article exciting (though it would be good if it was interesting), but giving context to the state of the match, especially for non-expert readers. I also looked up some of my books on WC matches and they do similar things, e.g. Israel Horowitz after Fischer-Spassky Game 13 "Now, with the score 8-5 in Fischer's favour... virtually no one, including Spassky, felt that the outcome of the match was in doubt." So the reader knows that Fischer-Spassky was virtually settled after Game 13 even though they played another 8 games. Adpete (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing the content over some abstract policy which you've made up yourself and nobody else agrees with is bad enough; removing the sources as well is borderline vandalism. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Euwe and Steinitz are hardly relevant, since then the matches were much longer. Alekhine vs Euwe 1935 lasted 30 games, and to win, a player had to win six games and score at least 15 points. Steinitz vs Zukertort 1886 was first to 10 wins. In these formats a 3-game lead isn't as crushing.

I agree that you can't understand matches in context without this kind of thing. Just think about the extreme case when the last game becomes a must-win for the champion to save his title (Lasker-Schlechter 1910, Kasparov-Karpov 1987, Kramnik-Leko 2004). Obviously it's not a complete overview of the match if you don't take note of that and see how commentators felt this impacted the champion's play for the crucial game. Similar story here in terms of understanding that once the game 9 blunder happened, this was basically over and the main question was how and when it'd finish. Double sharp (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting analysis and graphics

Are any of graphics/analysis in this article useful for this page: The World Chess Championship In 5 Charts? 78.19.229.252 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)