Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

British Chess Association

Is the British Chess Association the same organization as the English Chess Federation/British Chess Federation? Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The British Chess Association was an older organization, founded under the name Yorkshire Chess Association in 1841, then became the Northern and Midland Counties Chess Association (1852), and finally the British Chess Association (Manchester 1857). In the 1870s, the BCA was called the Counties Chess Association. It ceased to exist around 1891. --DaQuirin (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I made the mistake of assuming that they were the same, in at least one article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Program to make chess diagrams for Wikipedia

There is a new version of my Windows program to make chess diagrams for Wikipedia. Go to my file download page, and it is the first program on the download screen, either download WikiChessDiagram.zip and extract the EXE file or download WikiChessDiagram.EXEC and change the extention to ".exe".

This is version 2.0 of the program and it has several enhancements and new features. It now has options to make small diagrams and to put them on the left. If you have a piece selected and drop it on the wrong square, clicking the square again (with the same piece selected) will remove the piece.

And now it will accept FEN input. Enter a FEN position and click "Generate from FEN". There is no error checking on FEN input, so an incorrect FEN can cause the program to bomb out.

Also, now instead of showing letters to stand for the pieces, it shows the same images as the actual diagrams in Wikipedia. For some reason, white dots and digits don't show up correctly on the image of the board, but they are correct in the generated diagram.

If you have and problems or questions, contact me. Bubba73 (talk), 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, although I find it easy enough to copy a sample diagram from somewhere and then edit & preview. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what I used to do, but it is a lot of work and is prone to errors. With this program you can drop pieces on the board or input a FEN. You can also label squares with dots, x, or digits. You can also input headers and captions, as well as check boxes for small or left. Bubba73 (talk), 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

chess-stub

Is the {chess-stub} tag still used, since the project banner has Stub? An editor is adding them to articles, and I was wondering if it is worthwhile. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they can serve a useful function, as they may encourage a reader (who may not even be aware of WikiProjects) to expand an article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; there's probably nothing intrinsically wrong with using the Stub tag, but I did get the impression that the editor in question was adding them to moderately well developed articles—I presume the cut-off should still be about 3 paras? I'll keep an eye open. 92.233.206.234 (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The articles where I saw them added were stubs, but stubs are handled by the project tag on the talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 16:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They all need some work...

Behind this enigmatic name of thread, I would like to understand better the purpose of the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess#..._which_need_some_work of our project page. I mean, all articles apart from FA need some work, so why do we need a section ? This section will point out specific articles, but along which criteria ? SyG (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I recall the original idea was to focus editors' attention on a few articles that would often be visited and which gave a poor impression of our work. Similarly, we might equally ask why have a .... which need a photo section? This would ordinarily be any article that doesn't already have one. The problem seems to be that there are not many of us and we all have our preferences / specialisms from which we don't particularly want to switch. Hence, we rarely pull together towards addressing these identified goals, desirable though they may be, as there is still a lot of material that needs adding in just about every other area too (in my opinion, but perhaps we should undertake an audit?!). Anyway, it's arguably still worth having these sections, as they identify areas of perceived weakness and may just attract an editor who is new / flexible / looking for a new challenge etc. I'd be interested in others' views on this though. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I know other WikiProjects have an "adopt an article" section where each week or month or whatever a member chooses a specific article they want to improve and add it to the section, and others can pitch in and help. That might be the way to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some articles specifically need work. We certainly don't need to try to make all articles FA class (or even GA class). For most things, B or C is "GE" (Good Enough). "Start" is "Good Enough" for some things. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If people want to know what to improve, they just have to click on the intersection between, say, High-importance and Stub-class. So what is this section adding ? Pawnkingthree's suggestion of an Article Adoption (aka Collaboration Drive) would be more focused, no ?! SyG (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would get some of them, but they aren't all stubs. They may need references, examples, copyediting, wikilinks, cleanup, etc. Bubba73 (talk), 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing bottom class articles from the index of chess articles - I object

I am sorry but I think this is a really really bad idea. The most important reason is maintenance of this mutual watchlist. For a long time now i periodically synchronize the list with all articles in the category chess (recursive) and the WP:Chess template. This worked really well, but you would be surprised on how necessary this is. Every time, I have at least 20 differences (a lot of renamed articles, but also articles that got vandalized or had their chess category removed by accident, new articles, etc, etc) When we remove all the bottom class articles, there is no easy way for me to update the list or make sure all are chess articles have the template. In 6 months, I can promise, the list will hopeless out of date. Is there really one good reason to not include the bottom articles? If nobody likes to see them in the main index, how about at the end of the list in a separate section?

On another note, a lot of the bottom chess articles are not bottom at all in my book. Could someone give me a clear definition? Definitely not bottom are eg: Longest uncrossed knight's path, Bitboard, Chess on Yahoo! Games (I think this was the first article I created, although I think now it has no notability and should be removed from wp -- but if it is not chess related, what is it then? - same goes for Lego Chess), Chess symbols in Unicode (I would even give this mid importance). There is really no good reason to remove these articles from the index of chess articles. They are clearly chess related. I hope the compromise I suggested above (or some alternative) can be agreed on. Voorlandt (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the ones in Bottom are still in the index. I think Bitboard, Chess on Yahoo! Games, and Lego Chess do not belong in the Bottom category. These are directly related to chess. On the other hand Longest uncrossed knight's path and Chess symbols in Unicode have no chess content - ones like that I believe belong in the Bottom category. There are several people such as Humphrey Bogart and Stanley Kubrick that have at least some mention of chess, but the person is not primarily known as a chess player. There are also ones about films and plays that have some slight connection to chess but no chess content such as The Seventh Seal. There is also Beersheba. I think the ones that belong in the Bottom category for the chess project are ones that the project should not take under their wing to develop and maintain. Bubba73 (talk), 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. The problem is that the articles under category:chess or its subcategories need to match the ones with the chess project tag. The best solution to me is to remove most of the ones in the Bottom group from the Chess Categories, remove their chess project tag, and take them out of the index. Bubba73 (talk), 16:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This would solve the maintenance part, but eg Longest uncrossed knight's path clearly belongs to the chess category chess and mathematics. It is also clearly a chess puzzle. Anyway, I don't want to discuss specific articles. I still dont understand what is wrong on having these articles listed in the index. They have a reference to chess, so they should be in there, perhaps under a different subheading if the connection is not immediately obvious. For me the whole removing of these articles just creates extra work and overhead, with 0 advantage. Could you comment on my initial proposal (first paragraph)? Voorlandt (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as your proposal of putting them in another section in the index, I don't see any benefit in that because they would still show up in "related changes" for the index article. To me, Longest uncrossed knight's path has nothing to do with chess, it is entirely mathematical. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been putting a few more articles in Bottom area, but not removing them from the index or categories, pending what we decide about that. Bubba73 (talk), 21:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for not replying earlier, I have very little time these days. I really would like to put back all the bottom articles to the list. They are very few and although they are not important, they have one way or another a link to chess. They are marked as bottom, and so we know they have bottom importance to our project. You say 'I think the ones that belong in the Bottom category for the chess project are ones that the project should not take under their wing to develop and maintain.' I actually agree with this, but isn't that enough? These very few articles surely don't cause too much spam in the shared watchlist and it is nice to have one complete list with articles with chess references. Also, maintenance of this list is extremely important (I just had a look, and it is already very much out of date -- even without considering the bottom articles). Also the risk is that people with a more narrow view on notability (eg Syg), will be tempted to mark a lot of articles as bottom such as Lego Chess, in an attempt to make the WP:CHESS project more focussed. I don't think this would be the case, as almost all active participants in the WP:CHESS project spend most of there time on the mid+ articles anyway. I think the creation of the bottom category is a good thing and solved the concern that some editors had about articles with only side references to chess belonging to the WPCHESS project. I think this is a good compromise, but I hope it can stop there. Voorlandt (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Against my better judgment I added Dr. Strangelove to the project (bottom imp) because it has a sentence or two about chess. I was wanting to keep these things out, and perhaps they should stay out. Bubba73 (talk), 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Voorlandt's analysis of why bottom-importance articles should be listed in the index of chess articles. Krakatoa (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at it the other way round: what would be the disadvantage of keeping all the bottom articles in the index ? (if there is none, obviously let's do it) SyG (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have a few dozen chess articles on my watchlist. I try to check every edit to one of those. When I have time, I look at "related changes" to the index and check for vandalism. I do this several times per day (on the average), and there is a lot of vandalism, and I can't catch it all. Articles such as Aleister Crowley, The Seventh Seal, and Beersheba that show up on related changes to the index. There is little chess content in these articles and I'd rather not have them show up for recent changes to articles in the index. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is only a small number of bottom-importance chess articles. Surely it wouldn't be that hard for you to remember those articles and not bother checking changes to them? Krakatoa (talk) 06:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. But one thing I thought about would be to put the bottom importance on a subpage of the index page. Would that work? Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I considered putting The Luzhin Defense and Searching for Bobby Fischer in the Bottom group, but I didn't. The first one is entirely fictional, but the article does have some chess content. The second one is highly fictionalized (very different from the true-story book) but it is about some real chess players. Bubba73 (talk), 16:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I will now update the index of chess articles, and in view of the support above cross check with all the articles with a chess category or the wpchess template. Voorlandt (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Bubba73's suggestion to put the bottom articles on a subpage, and then get them back on the main index through transclusion ? Would that give the best of both worlds, i.e. the bottom articles would still be in the index but would not show up in "Related changes" ? SyG (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean like {{Portal:Chess/Selected article/Introduction/The Turk}} in the Portal:Chess. If it is like this, at least for the maintenance part, i just checked, would work. So am I ok with this. And would all articles in the bottom class go there? Voorlandt (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Bubba73's observation above about The Luzhin Defense and Searching for Bobby Fischer, I think that there is a lot of subjectivity as to the importance level articles are accorded. I would object to putting the articles he refers to in the Bottom group. However, I find The Turk's inclusion in "High" puzzling. It was a 19th-century hoax that captivated people at the time, but seems to me to have little importance to chessplayers today. IMO, it's Mid-Importance at best. Krakatoa (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

← Per the discussion above, I have implemented the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Assessment/Bottom importance, which contains all the Bottom-importance articles and which is transcluded in Index of chess articles. SyG (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Q&B vs. Q&N

Capablanca said that a Q & N worked better together than a Q & B. The 1997 book Bishop vs. knight: the verdict agreed. However, somewhere I read that recent computer analysis said that they were about the same, but I can't remember where I read it. I think it was work of Larry Kauffman. Does anyone know of a reference for this? Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know this book, sorry. (so why do you answer to my question, you may ask; well, I just do not want you to think noone judged your question interesting or bothered to answer)

What I know is that queen and knight work better for an attack against the adverse king, which may be linked to the fact that the queen lacks the knight ability, and not the bishop ability. SyG (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Capablanca thought that and others agreed. Somewhere I read that recent computer analysis does not support that conclusion, but I can't find it again. It needs to be presented in the exchange (chess)#Minor exchange as an alternative POV, but it needs to be referenced. Bubba73 (talk), 14:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I have seen the piece you refer to, but I also don't remember where. The author said that the evidence was too mixed to warrant a categorical conclusion as to which set of pieces works better. I did once win a pawn-down ending against Life Master Angelo Sandrin, given confidence because I "knew" that my Q+N were better than his Q+B (although maybe they really were in our position). Krakatoa (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like what I read but I can't remember where. Bubba73 (talk), 16:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy. 171.66.85.135 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have now added that to the article. However, I think that there was also an article by Larry Kaufman in Chess Life in the last couple of years that addressed the subject. Krakatoa (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have that book so I must have read it somewhere else (perhaps another of his books). Bubba73 (talk), 02:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Kaufman's article, which was right in front of my nose, referenced in Chess piece relative value. Bubba73 (talk), 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that is a very interesting article, but I don't think I'd ever seen it, and it's not the one I was thinking of. I think Kaufman has another, more recent article that addresses Q+N v. Q+B at greater length. Krakatoa (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be. It is also discussed in Practical Endgame Play: beyond the basics by Glenn Flear. Bubba73 (talk), 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of bishop and rook

In chess and history of chess, we have conflicting sources. Was the bishop an elephant and a rook a chariot or the other way around? The article have said this and the Oxford Companion, the history book by Davidson, and the encyclopedia by Golombek agree. However, another editor has a reference from Bird and another one that have them reversed. Does anyone have references to help clear this up, perhaps H. J. R. Murray? Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bishop was elephant and rook was chariot, as the articles stated originally. Murray (1913), A History of Chess, p. 159: "The names of the pieces are given in Chatrang-namak and in the Shahnama. They are shah (king), farsin (wise man, counellor), pil (elephant), asp (horse), rukh (chariot), and piyadah (foot soldier)." Quale (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are several reliable sources that contradict each other, the articles should reflect that. For example "Most sources assess that the bishop comes from the elephant,<ref>Ofxord Companion</ref><ref>Davidson</ref><ref>Golombek</ref> but some authors think it comes from the chariot.<ref>Bird</ref><ref>other source</ref>".

It is also possible that Bird and the other source are not reliable, but this shall be carefully analysed before wiping them out. SyG (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Russian language uses name "slon" (elephant) for bishop as can be checked in (almost) any Russian chess book. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who put this in and have now reverted as discussed at talk:history of chess#bishop and rook. It was suggested that Bird may be following the now discredited Forbes. I note that Bird does mention Forbes as a source (but not for this particular issue) and seems to admire his work. This all predates Murray's work. SpinningSpark

Well, all this certainly enhanced our overall understanding of the history of chess, so thanks for having started this debate in the first place, and thanks also for the interest you put in chess articles. Happy editing ! SyG (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we wouldwelcome you joining this project. Bubba73 (talk), 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

New template

I have created a new template, template:chess diagram svg. I did this specifically to provide icons for the Chaturaji article diagrams, but I have made it more general than that. The template will also function for chess diagrams in the normal format but uses the svg icons from commons instead of png. SpinningSpark 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference between the existing and new template. I guess there are some advantage to the new one, but without awareness of them it appears the new one is the same as the old. SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It quite deliberately has the same look as the old one. The difference is that the icons used by the new one are (a) in the SVG file format which is preferred by Wikipedia and are easier to edit if necessary and (b) the icons live on Commons instead of locally so are available to all Wikimedia projects, not just English. It also uses the same template for the standard chequered board and the plain unchequered board controlled by a passed parameter, whereas the old ones are two separate templates. However, the main reason for producing it was because I wanted to make coloured icons specific to the Chaturaji article as stated above. Making it do standard chess as well was unecessary but fairly easy and I thought someone might find it useful.

If the chess project is interested in using it, I could extend it to include the many other templates of various dimensions. This would have the advantage of having all the templates in one file, making maintenance a lot easier. But no point in doing that unless someone actually wants to use it.

By the way, it crossed my mind to create specific icons for Chaturanga as well, but not so sure how people would regard that. Chaturaji is quite clearly a different game and should have different icons, but this one I would want others to support the idea before I did anything.

SpinningSpark 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would welcome the use of the new template both on wikipedia and wikibooks [1] SunCreator (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

cleanup listing

The first cleanup listing is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Cleanup listing. This shows articles that need some sort of specific work. Elo rating system is in the most need. Bubba73 (talk), 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the listing also points out the "Top"-or "High"-importance articles is also interesting. SyG (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it puts special emphasis on them. Bubba73 (talk), 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How many GM norms?

How many Grandmaster norms are required for a GM title? I thought it was three, but someone just changed it to two in that article. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Two but not clear. From Fide.com:1.50a Two or more norms in events covering at least 27 games SunCreator (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster (chess) says two norms while Grandmaster norm said three and now updated to two. Seems a duplication here and so I've suggested the articles are merged. SunCreator (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer dispute

I've gotten into a dispute on the Bobby Fischer talk page with 194x144x90x118 over this addition that I made to the section of the article about Fischer's anti-Semitism:

Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator. [citing David and Alessandra DeLucia, The Uncensored Bobby Fischer, 2009, pp. 160-62, 166.] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews." [citing DeLucia 2009, pp. 290, 292.]

194x144x90x118 vehemently objects to this, and has deleted it. He has offered various explanations, including:

(1)"Fischer was first and foremost a Chess genius not an anti semite and this article already sufficiently says all it needs to say regarding his alleged anti semitism, further more Fischer wasn't an anti semite he was an anti zionist which is a completely different thing."

(2) "If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?"

(3) "If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic."

Quale reverted the article, restoring my edit, but SarekOfVulcan re-reverted it. Evidently impressed by 194x144x90x118 's eloquence, he concurred: "At the moment, I agree fully. If the edit can be properly sourced, then there could be grounds for discussion."

I pointed out that DeLucia's new book was released days ago, and has accordingly not been the subject of a review other than the pseudonymous review of it [here http://www.chessgames.com/~ChessBookForum?kpage=15#reply385]. (Scroll up a bit to the two-part review by "Paris Attack". The comment by "FSR" is me.) I also pointed out that the chess historian (and co-author, with David Hooper, of the book The Immortal Capablanca) Dale Brandreth wrote of the two editions of DeLucia's prior book The Chess Library of David DeLucia: A Few Old Friends:

Among the treasure[s] depicted in this volume are the Paris Lucena Manuscript, the first edition Damiano, a flawless Carrera, the three editions of Saul (1614, 1640, 1672), the first edition Ruy Lopez, three different-color editions of the London 1883 tournament book (pristine copies), the Dubuque Chess Journal (with collation of this very hard-to-get complete run), St. Petersburg 1895 Tournament book, letters and scores of Alekhine, a commemorative envelope from Em. Lasker to his wife Martha from Cambridge Springs 1904, the first page of the Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament bulletins (the first tournament bulletins ever), extracts from several Lasker manuscripts (some on mathematics), several Lasker letters, a letter from Einstein to Lasker, Morphy letters, scoresheet, photos, and his chess board, Capablanca scoresheet, Capa's top hat, passport, and watch...and hundreds more extraordinary items. These two volumes are unique in the history of chess literature. I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice. [Emphasis added.]

I also noted that Edward Winter, in Chess Note 5323, called DeLucia's prior work "of incomparable quality" and "so stunning in terms of both production and content that we can only marvel at it". I would think comments by two respected chess historians that DeLucia's work is "of incomparable quality" and "I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice" ought to sufficiently answer the suggestion that he is not a reliable source. SarekOfVulcan, perhaps having since returned to his home planet, has not responded. I am about at the end of my rope dealing with 194x144x90x118. Does anyone else care to weigh in? Krakatoa (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The fellow has now filed a complaint against me for purported edit warring, and threatened me on my Talk page. Krakatoa (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are the threats:

This is basically the deal, you were wrong, the consensus is against you, a larger consensus is going to form and the edit will not stand. I have also taken a look at other instances in your edit history and it seems that much of your work here on wikipedia has been somehow misguided. You have two options, A. Face a full review and scrutiny of your work here on wikipedia that will lead to other article changes that you've made being reverted or B. Withdraw your support for your own edit on the bobby fischer article and never show yourself anywhere near it again. I await your response.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that one more revert or one more supporting comment on the talkpage will be taken as a rejection of this offer and will have consequences.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Krakatoa, if you keep your cool as you have so far, this will eventually turn out OK. I know it's very hard when dealing with these sorts of disruptive and abusive users, but he is pretty well known to the admins at WP:ANI and they are not very sympathetic to him. It's also clear that he has a distorted view of Wikipedia including what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what is expected and required of contributors here. I think one of Wikipedia's failings is that admins are too slow to block editors like this one, but in this particular circumstance I'm confident that outcome will be all right. I don't even think you need to mount a particularly vigorous defense against laughable attacks such as these, although it sticks in the craw to not fight back as hard as possible. Quale (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have just been reading his (? - I assume it's "his"; hard to imagine someone this vitriolic being female, although possible, of course) Talk page and I see that this sort of thing is typical (e.g., calling an admin "incompetent and insane"). He also refers there to Philcha, Brittle heaven and me as "total fucking morons," "fucking losers," and "ignorant". (He doesn't refer to us by name, but since he's talking about a recent dispute on the Bobby Fischer talk page, we're evidently who he means.) Krakatoa (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable person?

Is this person notable: Martin Bryant (programmer)? The article is almost entirely about the chess and checkers programs he wrote. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would personally say no, but I am impressed by the references given: they are real reliable sources, so I would give it the benefit of doubt. SyG (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

From memory, Bryant was indeed one of the big names in the development of computer chess programs in the early eighties. So if computer chess is notable, then I'd probably say he is too. Brittle heaven (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:57, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

please check addition

Please check the two variations added to Open Game today. I didn't find any reference to them on the internet so I deleted them. They were added back and I added "fact" tags. Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call to question this. I'd remove it as a hoax except but found names are real players, see Kuijper and Mellema. I do believe that 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 is called Ponziani's Gambit and that's what is in Bishop's Opening. SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks altogether wrong in my opinion. Hooper & Whyld are quite meticulous in their naming of variations and they agree with User:SunCreator on the 3.d4 line (Ponziani Gambit). The 3.d3 line doesn't seem to have a name, and when you think about it, it's just a solid, obvious, unremarkable move, so why would anyone bother to name it? I think once you move to more contemporary times than Hooper & Whyld (1984), a name would need plenty of references from different sources to be regarded as notable, and not just some obscure passing reference from someone like Eric Schiller. As for 2. Bd3?! Tortoise Opening, near the bottom of the list—again, where are the sources? This ridiculous move is contrary to the principles of an Open Game, so hardly seems like a good or notable example. Brittle heaven (talk) 07:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Isolani

I believe the origin of the word is Italian (not Latin), so the ending in "i" makes sense. It means an "islander." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So why comment to say something is correct in Glossary_of_chess#Isolani + Isolated_pawn? SunCreator (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Isolated Pawn article contains this aside "... called isolani (it is not clear why this term is used rather than the singular form, 'isolanus', which is ironic considering that the pawn stands alone)", which seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as the word being Italian, not Latin, that does seem very plausible. But it's still a plural noun; the singular in Italian would be "isolano". —JAO • T • C 15:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This has often been questioned. Grammatically Isolani makes no sense. The term seems to have been coined by Aron Nimzowitsch. There has been speculation whether he adopted the name (or may have been influenced by the name) of a main character of Friedrich Schiller's Wallenstein play, a daredevil general, named Count Isolani - in fact a true historical figure, see the German wiki on Count Isolani. See for the chess term and Isolani also here, but so far the mystery about the term's origin has not been solved. --DaQuirin (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Join the project

I want to join this project in chess, so I can learn how to play chess better with my comrades. How does it do? Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Szląchski, and welcome to Wikipedia ! We are more than happy to have you on board in this WikiProject, but please note its purpose is not to learn or teach chess, but to improve the coverage of chess subjects on Wikipedia. So you may be disappointed by not improving that much. Still wana join ? SyG (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of this project is to work on the chess articles. But there are a lot of good articles where you could learn a lot. But they aren't as in depth as books. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 04:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Tournament crosstable

I was reading the Linares chess tournament and i've a couple of questions, do we have a standarised format for tournaments' crosstables? should a draw should be ½ or = in the table? and finally should the crosstables be in the main Linares chess tournament article or should the crosstables go into seperate articles for specific years like for example this one: Corus 2008 chess tournament. Loosmark (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Both Linares chess tournament and Corus chess tournament are currently a mess, and both would greately benifit from a clean up. They are extremely important tournaments and it is a shame they are in such bad shape. I would suggest to have crosstables for all editions of these tournaments, but inside the article, not in separate articles. Compare eg with Tilburg chess tournament, I think that article is not perfect, but at least consistent in presentation.
• Regarding ½ or =, I think ½ is slightly more common, but I could be wrong.
• To make it manegable perhaps Corus chess tournament can be split in Hoogovens chess tournament and Corus chess tournament. Voorlandt (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Linares and Corus articles are in really bad shape we need to improve that. I think we should decide what information should the tournament crosstable have, should the country of the players, their titles and their RP in the tourney be included? Loosmark (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the format of the crosstable in Corus 2008 chess tournament is just right, ie countries and rp but not titles. But as I said, I would make that article a redirect and separate Corus from Hoogovens. Just 10 editions of Corus have been played so it should be managable to have crosstables for each of them in the same article. I would have fixed up these articles long time ago, but currently don't have the time. If you are willing to do it, one way to save time is to copy the crosstable from eg TWIC into excel (text to columns) and use the excel to wiki converter to get it in wiki format [2] Voorlandt (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a bit redundant to have both the name of the country and the country flag in the crosstable? I think it would be better to have just one of those. Loosmark (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it is redundant, but that's how we have been doing it for most chess tournaments. It is not important imo, but not sure if there is an alternative to Template:Flagathlete Voorlandt (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian Game, again

Some sources say that the Italian Game is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. Others say that the Italian game is after 3... Bc5, which is also generally known as the Guioco Piano. But Chess Opening Essentials calls the above with 4. d3 the Guioco Piano whereas everyone else calls it the Guioco Piamisso (sp?). This book calls 4.c3 the Italian Game.

This has been discussed before (about what is the Italian), but this book seems to be at odds with everything else. To me, it makes sense for 3. Bc4 to be the Italian, to distinguish it from other White moves at this point, e.g. the Ruy Lopez and the Scotch. Then it can branch off into the Two Knights or GP, depending on Black's fourth move. Then the GP or Guioco Piamisso depending on White's fifth move. Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I think it is "Pianissimo", and not "Piamisso". This is italian for "very very slowly". Then, one of my most reliable source tells the Italian game and the Giuoco Piano are the same, and are 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, because 3...Nf6 is not the Italian game but the defense of the two knights.

On the other hand, the World Correspondence Chess Federation calls 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 the Italian defence. SyG (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 3.Bc4 Bc5 constitutes Italian Game or Giuoco Piano - they are the same. Thereafter, some call the 4. d3 line Giuoco Pianissimo (Ray Keene thinks this means "Quietest" rather than "Slowest") and 4. c3 the Piano proper. The third option is 4. b4, The Evans Gambit which effectively, by means of a pawn sac, allows a turbo-charged Piano with the tempo-gaining c3 preparing an early d4. User:Gabodon would be able to clear up any translation questions, if necessary. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

From Italian Game. "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3…Bc5.". I don't see what is at odds with the article, perhaps it's the name of 4. d3, which is the Giuoco Pianissimo, although depending on the context could still be called a Guioco Piano because that it what it came from. In the same way you would call 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 a Sicilian although normally be more precise and call it a Najdorf Sicilian. SunCreator (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I had two points: (1) what that book calls the Piano, most sources call the Pianissimo. That may be a problem with the translation though. Secondly, why make the Italian the same as the GP? I think it makes more sense to call 3. Bc4 the Italian and you can have the GP or 2N from there. Some books give the Italian this way. That has the benefit of distinguishing 3. Bc4 from the Ruy, Scotch, etc. The Ruy and Scotch are "white openings", whereas most openings are black openings (i.e. a black move distinguishes it.) It would be good for 3.Bc4 to have a general name. Of course, I am not suggesting we change this in the articles - they must go by standard sources. But some sources do call 3. Bc4 the Italian. Bubba73 (if you can read this you can go to my talk page), 03:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the point you make; however 3. Bc4 is a crossroads and has no defining characteristic or identity of its own, i.e. Black can choose 3... Bc5 GP, ... Be7 Hungarian Def, ... Nf6 2N, ... f5 Rousseau Gambit etc. These all lead to games of a different nature. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the double name, there are quite a few examples ... eg. Ruy Lopez/Spanish, Centre Counter/Scandinavian - they tend to relate to a country of origin or popularity and 'Giouco Piano' obviously has Italian roots, hence Italian Game. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bubba73 that it is desirable to call 3.Bc4 "Italian Game" and branch from there into the Giuoco Piano, Two Knights, Hungarian, Paris (3...d6), etc. Regarding Brittle heaven's observation that "3. Bc4 is a crossroads and has no defining characteristic or identity of its own", Quale once observed, and I agree, that the various lines arising out of 3.Bc4 have a lot more in common than, say, the Queen's Gambit, which leads to very different types of games depending on which of the myriad replies Black chooses (2...dxc4, 2...e6, 2...c6, 2...e5, 2...Nc6, 2...Bf5, 2...Nf6, 2...c5, and even 2...Bg4, named for the inappropriately-named British player "Horseman"). Krakatoa (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's easy to find sources using "Italian Game" as a synonym of the Giuoco Piano and other sources that use it for the position after 3.Bc4, so our articles should clearly state that the term is used with two different but very closely related meanings. (We don't do this correctly right now.) I don't think that either of these uses is especially preferred, although my off-the-cuff guess is that at least a few more sources use it to mean the G.P. Actually I suspect that in at least some of the cases that it is used for the G.P. it is also intended to cover other lines after 3.Bc4. Jargon is not always used perfectly precisely, and in fact somewhat loosely defined terms are not always bad—they can actual make communication easier when excessive precision is too tedious. In instances such as these the meaning the author intends for "Italian Game" is almost always clear in context. As Krakatoa notes, for our purposes in giving names to articles, it is much more useful to employ "Italian Game" with a meaning distinct from the G.P. I don't know that any of this represents a particularly difficult problem. There are many fields in which terminology is not perfectly standardized, and this is a much more serious issue in areas like medicine. All we need do is describe the accepted uses based on reliable sources. With this in mind, I think Italian Game is currently wrong: "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3…Bc5." This isn't stated correctly. G.P. doesn't "also" refer to anything. Unlike the Italian Game the G.P. is very precisely defined and always means the line after 4...Bc5. The current wording is pretty much backwards. P.S. I don't think those lists of ECO codes mentioned near the beginning of the thread are reliable sources for opening names, although people repeatedly use them in wikipedia as if they were. (Also in this particular case, I have no idea what the "World Correspondence Chess Federation" is. The official world correspondence chess organization is the ICCF.) My understanding is that ECO doesn't actually give English names to their codes (see the Chess Informant site itself), so the opening names on the ECO lists floating around on the internet are unofficial compilations made by persons unknown and posted to various websites (probably geocities originally). Perhaps unfortunately, wikipedia has enshrined its own mutated version compiled from several of these lists at list of chess openings, so it will be propagated forever without end. The A00 entries on our list are particularly absurd. Quale (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Quale is correct that ECO generally does not indicate an opening's name, just the sequence(s) of moves assigned to a particular ECO code. ECO assigns "C50" to include (1) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, moves other than 3...Bc5 and 3...Nf6 and (2) 3...Bc5, moves other than 4.b4 and 4.c3. There is no mention of "Italian Game," "Giuoco Piano," or "Hungarian Defense". ECO, Volume C (3rd ed. 1997), pp. 282, 284. In rare instances, ECO indicates the name of a person associated with an opening, e.g. "Alehin" for 1.e4 Nf6. ECO, Volume B (3rd ed. 1997), p. 26 n. 1. Nimzowitsch is not mentioned in connection with 1.e4 Nc6, id. p. 12, nor Caro and Kann for 1.e4 c6, id., p. 86. Krakatoa (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I can't agree. I've played league chess for over 30 years and no-one has ever expressed the opinion that 3. Bc4 constitutes the Italian Game. Maybe someone needs to check the Gottingen Manuscript or the analysis of Greco and Polerio, from which the names 'Italian Game' and 'Quiet Game' appear to originate, but personally, I'd have to follow my own experience, which appears to be fully supported by the likes of Brace, Hooper & Whyld, Keene & Levy, Gufeld & Kalinichenko, to name a few opening books I've just checked. What are the sources that say otherwise? Are they equally reliable to those I just mentioned? I also find the point about the Queen's Gambit completely spurious. It's called the Queen's Gambit because you just gambited a pawn on the queenside, nothing more, nothing less. It's not meant to define the type of game that follows. In stark contrast, the 'Italian Game' does indeed refer to a specific set of possibilities arising after 3. Bc4 Bc5 (the aforementioned body of work by Greco/Polerio/Ruy Lopez, among others). Brittle heaven (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some books do call 3. Bc4 the Italian game. Bubba73 (talk), 00:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is some previous discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 5#A_couple_of_things and Talk:Italian Game and Talk:Giuoco Piano. I didnt' look at these exhaustively, but I think the only books listed there that use "Italian Game" as a term distinct from the G.P. are The Guioco Piano by Gufeld and Stesko (the GP "is a branch of the Italian Game") and Understanding the Chess Openings by Sam Collins. I would consider Gufeld and Stesko to be the better reference of the two, but if this is all the support that calling 3.Bc4 the Italian Game has, then it's weaker than I thought. Quale (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. At first glance, Gufeld seems to be contradicting himself between his works with Stetsko and Kalinichenko. But looking more closely, he's just saying that after 3.Bc4 Bc5 (the Italian Game), there is also the possibility of the Evans Gambit - hence the Giuoco Piano is indeed 'one branch' of the Italian Game. It is therefore a small but important distinction that the Giuoco Piano and Italian Game are not 'identical' terms, just 'synonymous' terms (the words have different meanings - synonymous can mean "associated with"). Brace is therefore technically imprecise when he says the I.G. is "another name for G.P.". I can't comment on Sam Collins, as I havn't got his book, but much of what I'm saying appears to mirror your conversation with User:Moonraker12 on Talk:Italian Game when he said;

[ ... "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3... Bc5." which mirrors the comment I found on the GP page. I know that nowadays (though I don't know how widespread it is) they are used synonymously, but I'm also conscious that they are not (or were not) the same thing (3.Bc4 certainly isn't "Quiet"!), and I wanted to reflect that.] Brittle heaven (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I might add that I also described I.G. and G.P. as one and the same thing at the top of this string. This is where the real confusion lies - it's a fine distinction; some may take the view that the Evans is just an offshoot of the G.P., in which case Gufeld & Stetsko were misleading and Brace is right. In truth, you'd probably have to study the ancient works to know precisely what was analysed after 3.Bc4 Bc5 and what properly constitutes the Italian Game. I'll be amazed if it's everything after 3.Bc4 though! Brittle heaven (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On page 5, Gufeld and Stetsko say "The G.P. (... 3. Bc4 Bc5) is a branch of the Italian Game with a 500 year history ..." To me that seems to say that 3. Bc5 is where the G.P. branches off the I.G. but it is possible that they mean the non-Evans Gambit branch. Page 12 of the book by IM Collins says "...3.Bc4 This move signals the beginning of the I.G." Then he talks about branches of the I.G. - the G.P., Evans Gambit, and Two Knights. (Note that I think all other sources I looked at said that the I.G. and G.P. were the same, except that Chess Opening Essentials says that the I.G. is the Giuoco Pianissimo.) Bubba73 (talk), 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I hadn't thought of the possibility that someone would consider both the G.P. and the Evans Gambit to be Italian Games, but not consider the Evans Gambit to be (at least in essence) a variation of the G.P. That is certainly an interesting approach. Note that I think the current statement on Italian Game is simply wrong. "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3... Bc5." The G.P. doesn't also refer particularly to anything, it is precisely 3...Bc5. If the I.G. and G.P. are always synonymous (and clearly this is the majority usage) then this comment is unnecessary and confusing and the description of the G.P. is wrong. If they aren't always synonymous then a comment is needed but this characterization of the G.P. is still wrong. (Use of the term Italian Game to refer to the Guioco Pianissimo is an aberrant usage that doesn't belong in wikipedia. We don't currently use it that way, so we're OK on that point). It is handy for classification purposes to have a name for the positions following 3.Bc4. The question I guess is whether we have sufficient reliable sources to call this the Italian Game. If we don't then I suspect we will be forced to again turn the current I.G. page into a redirect to G.P. as I don't think there's another suitable name for the page. The positions following 3.Bc4 are important Open Games, so some of the material could be moved there. Quale (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that equating Guioco Pianissimo and the I.G. is wrong, although it is in that book. That book was translated from some European language, and I think they made incorrect translations to some of the English names. Bubba73 (talk), 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Mammoth Book of Chess by Burgess, page 122 (revised edition) also gives 3. Bc4 as the Italian Game, with the G.P. 2N, Hungarian, and others branching off from there. Bubba73 (talk), 02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Preface to The Italian Game by T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill (1976), the authors write, "This book deals with all the openings that arise from 1 P-K4 P-K4 2 N-KB3 N-QB3 3 B-B4. In Europe this complex is known as the Italian Game, but Anglo-Saxon readers may be more familiar with the term Giuoco Piano for the lines where Black replies 3...B-B4." On page 1, they confuse matters by writing of the position after 3...B-B4 (3...Bc5), "Thus begins the Italian Game, or Giuoco Piano, proper." Given that 3.Bc4 is sometimes referred to as the Italian Game, I favor using the term that way in Wikipedia for essentially administrative reasons - for example, in opening articles referring to, say, the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6, we can write, "White usually plays 3.Bb5, the Ruy Lopez, or 3.Bc4, the Italian Game" rather than having to refer to the latter possibility in more cumbersome fashion as "3.Bc4, which may lead to the Giuoco Piano, Two Knights Game, or Hungarian Defense, among other openings". Of course, the Italian Game article should also acknowledge, as it does, that the term is also often used to refer specifically to the position after 3...Bc5 (a/k/a the Giuoco Piano). Krakatoa (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian game is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5, if black plays anything else rather than Bc5 then it is not italian but rather 3...Be7 hungarian defense, 3...Nf6 two knights or four knights depending on what black does etc. Caling 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 italian game is same as calling 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 king's indian. Loosmark (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Modern chess openings which is the authority on the topic has this to say:

Giouco Piano 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5. The Giouco Piano (known outside the English-speaking world as the "Italian Game") is a fifteenth-centuty opening that has stood the test of time. It's clear what the Italian game is and also that Giouco Piano and Italian Game are synonyms. Loosmark (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As you may have surmised, I'm broadly with Loosmark on this one. I think the balance of evidence easily favours the Italian Game starting after 3. Bc4 Bc5 and whilst I'd admit it's no big deal either way, it does seem a bit mad to say otherwise, for reasons of administrative ease. I doubt you could construct a sentence along the lines of Krakatoa's example, in any eventuality, as it omits the possibilities 3. c3 - Ponziani, 3. d4 - Scotch, 3. Nc3 - Four Knight's Game ... so surely it's just inescapably cumbersome however you describe 3. Bc4. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that most sources equate the I.G. and G.P, but not all. Also, people speak of the "Spanish bishop" (on b5) and the "Italian bishop" (on c4). It is also nice to distinguish among 3. Bc4, the Ruy, and the Scotch, three knights. ... Bubba73 (talk), 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For an example of the utility of using Italian Game for all the openings following 3.Bc4, see Blackburne Shilling Gambit. I won't argue that this usage is essential, but it is handy. Without it we might have to direct the reader to Open Game to see what Black usually plays instead of 3...Nd4?! Quale (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good example. The Open Game is less specific. Burgess says that the Italian game brances off to the G.P., 2N, or Hungarian. Blackburne-Shilling gambit is also a branch from that point. Bubba73 (talk), 04:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Table of references for the Italian Game

Here are the various references cited in the discussion above, classified on whether they support the Italian Game being 3...Bc5 or being 3.Bc4. Please feel free to add any new reliable source you may find. SyG (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

	Support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5	Support the Italian Game as 3.Bc4	Others
1	Le guide des échecs (Nicolas Giffard) calls 3...Bc5 the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano (synonyms)	Sam Collins: "3.Bc4 This move signals the beginning of the Italian Game"	Chess Opening Essentials calls 4.c3 the Italian Game, and 4.d3 the Giuoco Pianissimo
2	Brace	The Mammoth Book of Chess (Burgess)	The World Correspondence Chess Federation calls 3...Bc5 the Giuoco Piano, and 4.c3 the Italian Game
3	Hooper & Whyld	The Italian Game (T.D. Harding & G.S. Botterill)
4	Gufeld & Kalinichenko	Gufeld & Stesko: "The G.P. (3.Bc4 Bc5) is a branch of the Italian Game"
5	Keene & Levy
6	Modern chess openings
7	Le bréviaire des échecs (Xavier Tartakower)
8	Le guide Marabout des échecs (Frits van Seters)
9	Italian game and Evans gambit (Jan Pinski)
10	Die Italienische Partie: eine alte Eröffnung, wieder modern (Jakov B. Estrin, German translation, 1985)
11
12
13

It would be good to know the context of some of those references. To say support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5 'Italian game and Evans gambit' does not necessarily mean ONLY the Italian game and Evans gambit. Such references may also support Italian Game as 3. Bc4. SunCreator (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs in Chess Titans

Short comment on the previous discussion. I know WP:OR, but i have managed to reproduce one of the issues. The silly pawn vs 0-0-0 bug is real alright, it makes the computer (v6.0 build 6000) illegally move one of my pieces, making it seem that white had made three consecutive moves. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: and it doesn't only happen once. After that illegal move, the computer keeps moving my pieces from time to time, and subsequently check-mating him (or even just getting into a situation in which there's something wrong with his "best"/chosen move) gets into an endless loop of showing an "Invalid move" message inviting me to try another. :-| -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Elo rating system

The Elo rating system article has had a "may need a total rewrite" template on it for some time. I have taken issue on the talkpage (here) with a particular paragraph there which I think is flat out wrong, but I'd appreciate comment on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the template now, as I think at least 90% of articles on Wikipedia would deserve such a flag, so it is really useless and discouraging. SyG (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Elo rating system is one of the most viewed chess topics yet it's has so many issues. Would be nice if wikichess members could clean up this article. SunCreator (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD on president of the Chess Federation of Armenia

There's currently a deletion debate underway for Vanik Zakaryan. By secondary source coverage alone he doesn't seem notable, but he's also the president of the Chess Federation of Armenia and a vice-president of the World Chess Federation, so members of this project might be in a better position than me to judge his notability. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanik Zakaryan. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe FIDE could contain a list of Vice Presidents. SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Skip that idea. There are to many Vice Presidents. FIDE Presidential Board SunCreator (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was to keep. He was co-champion of Armenia twice. Bubba73 (talk), 04:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

...and trying to delete articles on Armenian chess players only winds up with more of them being created. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ChessWorld

Hello all! I have expanded the ChessWorld article and maybe we could rerate it because of the changes. I do not think it is a Stub, more like a Start now. If anyone has any knowledge about chessworld, please help me continue to expand the article. BIONICLE233 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIONICLE233 (talk • contribs)

Yes, definitely not a stub now so I raised it to Start. Any editor can raise an article as high as B class by himself; higher classes need review. One thing: I think the cost of membership section should be removed. It is too much like an advertisement. Bubba73 (talk), 18:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take out that section. Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

chess term: board

Around here people use the term "board" to mean a chessboard and a set of pieces, e.g. "bring your board" when they mean to bring pieces also. Is this common (in orher areas)? Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't come across it myself. Most would say "set" not "board" in my experience (southern England).--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the rule around here. It happened to me again at the club three nights ago. Bubba73 (talk), 00:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Lasker's citizenship

I note that while the multiple citizenships of many world champions are listed Emmanuel Lasker does not have his USSR citizenship along with flag for such listed even though in body of work that citizenship is acknowledged and that he renounced his German citizenship. If Fischer's Iceland citizenship and flag listed , why not Lasker and his Soviet citizenship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably because Emanuel Lasker didn't accept Soviet citizenship until 1935. Alexander Alekhine was champion then. If you look at Nottingham 1936 chess tournament you'll see Lasker with the Soviet flag. Quale (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Staunton's nationality

Why is Staunton listed with flag of England as opposed to flag of United Kingdom such as Zukertort after all the UK was established 1707 before birth of Staunton??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In sporting contexts, often England, Scotland, etc. are often treated as separate entities rather than just using the inclusive UK designation. It is common to see Staunton referred to as an "English chess master", and not as common to see him referred to as a "UK chess master" or even "British chess master". (In other words, we are following our sources.) There is some practical reason for this in chess, as they have separate national chess federations and each send teams to the Chess Olympiad and other international team chess competitions. In the end I think it is often done because it's a little more precise. Everyone knows that England is part of the UK, but using England gives a little more information and loses nothing. We do use UK when it isn't clear which specific country should be used, and of course often there is no clear choice. We have had some discussion of this issue before. Also see Category:British chess players and its subcategories. Quale (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

At that point though, was there any such thing as an English, Irish, Welsh, Ulster or Scottish Chess Association? If not it is dangerous to extend the current practice backwards.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't extend current practice to the past, but I don't think that's the case here. I think contemporary sources describe Staunton as "English", and I also think current sources do too. Quale (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Conveniently I just stumbled across a description of Staunton as an English chess player in an article published today on the English player Nigel Short: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5736 Quale (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Staunton would have most likely have been described as English owing to the inbuilt prejudices of the day I suppose. I think British perhaps didn't come into fashion until later. I would wager that for today's UK writers to call him English merely reflects the same prejudices from Staunton's day.--ZincBelief (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "prejudice" has anything to do with it. One can be both British and English, of course; English is merely more specific.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather dismissive of historical reality. :) --ZincBelief (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that argument hard to understand. Are you saying that wikipedia should ignore both current and historical practice, because the writers were and are prejudiced? Quale (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Most popular articles

I signed this project up for this. Each month it will list the 1500 most popular articles, by the number of times they are read in the month. First results should be the first of September. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea ! Isn't 1500 a bit overshooting ? SyG (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. The default was 500, the maximum is 1500. Since there are over 3200 articles in the project I set it to 1500. That can be changed. On the other hand, it will show what type of articles aren't getting much traffic. Bubba73 (talk), 14:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to this. Where will the results be shown? SunCreator (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It says that it will start collecting Sept. 1. I just missed the Aug 1 start. But then I don't know if we can see results soon after Sept. 1 or have to wait until the end of the month. It also lists the Class and Importance ratings, but they are in order by number of hits. This should be useful in seeing where work needs to be done and we don't have to do it manually. Bubba73 (talk), 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The information should be at Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages when it becomes available. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the editing page Bubba73. SunCreator (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, I copied and pasted a little too much. It should be Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages but it isn't working correctly. I put a messages on the authors talk page asking about the problem. Others are working. Bubba73 (talk), 15:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it's signed up correctly? Other WikiProject had an update but we didn't. SunCreator (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Something must be wrong. It shows up here but it isn't showing the information that the others are. Bubba73 (talk), 14:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, the data can be seen here. Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO it's a bit pathetic that 4 of the first 5 pages have more or less nothing to do with chess. Loosmark (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and at least 8 out of the top 16. Bubba73 (talk), 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, would be good to have it filter out the bottom and low important articles Voorlandt (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should filter out Low importance articles. That may clue us in to it being considered more important. A few months ago I was in favor of eliminating the Bottom importance articles from the project, but the Bottom category was created instead. Benjamin Franklin, Aleister Crowley, Humphrey Bogart, and Stanley Kubrick all rank higher than any real chessplayers! And Marcel Duchamp is close behind Bobby Fischer and above all the rest. Bubba73 (talk), 18:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe time for a concerted effort to get Bobby Fischer back to GA, considering how often it's read.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, improving Fischer back to GA might be enlightening, especially as there should not be so much to do. By the way, I am rather satisfied to see that, not counting the Bottom-importance ones, the most viewed chess-related articles are at least C-class, and we have to go down to "Gambit" to see a Start-class. Maybe this one would also deserve a strong improvement ? SyG (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of almost insignificant observations: (1) stalemate outranks checkmate and (2) the fifty-move rule slightly outranks threefold repetition, although the latter is much more common. Bubba73 (talk), 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

László Polgár a stub article is more popular then Howard Staunton SunCreator (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends which (article popularity) search facility you want to believe. The other one we regularly use paints a completely different picture. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is the other search facility? Loosmark (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This one - [3] Brittle heaven (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no option to check for September so it is hard to compare the two. Loosmark (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - no direct comparison, but it still makes me wonder whether or not the L. Polgar stub is, in fact, more popular than the Staunton article, as was claimed. July was not that long ago and the difference is more pronounced than you would imagine could be explained by normal monthly fluctuation. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The author of stats.grok.se says that it does not count pages viewed through a redirect. The author of Popular Pages says his does count views that go through a redirect. That could account for a difference. Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's the redirects. If you use [4] you got to add László Polgár, Laszlo_Polgár and Laszlo Polgar, Nevelj zsenit! and any other redirects together. SunCreator (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful to know. And of course it's quite possible that more contemporary subjects will generally spark more public interest than historical ones, regardless of their relative importance in Wikiproject terms. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And of course Howard Staunton is an important article. It's just an interesting observation to see that another contemporary is more popular. SunCreator (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Totalled monthly views from [5]. Laszlo Polgar gets more views each month. SunCreator (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Month	Laszlo Polgar (combined)	Howard Staunton
May	1574	1254
June	2208	1210
July	1571	1263
August	1642	1330

It is a little hard to understand why that is true. But Polgar is linked from his daughters, that probably generates extra views. On the other hand, Staunton is linked in many places. Bubba73 (talk), 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Keene article

I have some concerns over the way this article has recently been greatly expanded by an editor who focuses only on Keene's 'dark side'. It seems that he has sourced just about every condemnation of Keene that can readily be found and then added it all in meticulous detail; even to the point of criticising a publisher's erroneous claims on the cover of a Keene book.

While I have no particular axe to grind on the article (and would even say that a lot of it is good work), the result is (roughly) a 400% expansion of the negative material, while his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all.

Is this a fair representation of Keene's chess career? Does the article continue to strike a balance? I'd say not, but I'd welcome the views of other Project Members. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Too much criticism and way too much detail of such for this article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Keene has many detractors, but the recent additions to the article are undue weight and run afoul of WP:BLP. Quale (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Our policies are crystal clear: controversial material about living people must be scrupulously sourced. Private Eye, Kingpin and the "Daily Dirt Chess Blog" are three sources I can see immediately that would most likely fail WP:RS. Of course a Raymond Keene article must have a Controversy section - it is hard to think of a more controversial chess figure - but three quarters of the article is way too much. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems quite unanimous. I'll have a word with the editor concerned and see where we go from there. Brittle heaven (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Private Eye is the most prominent satrical magzine operating in the UK. Kingpin is the most prominent satirical chess magazine operating in the world. Mig Greengard is one of the most prominent chess bloggers in the world. The idea that any of them would "fail" is a nonsense and I will put to them the suggestion that this so.

All references from all these magazines and everywhere else have been entirely scrupulously researched and all of them have been in the public domain, most for a very long time without receiving any legal challenge whatsoever. I would very much doubt that any other piece on chess in Wikipedia is more closely footnoted and more detailed than this one. I have also taken out a good number of factual errors (in the book list, for instance, or in the claim that Keene seconded Korchnoi in 1974, a claim that even Keene does not make). What you are proposing to amend is a piece that is presently many, many levels of accuracy and detail above which it has been before.

I'm afraid that there is a lot of controversy in Ray Keene's career and has been for thirty years and more. That is the nature of the career which the entry discusses. A great deal more could, in truth, be added, than is already in the piece. (If you do not believe this, say so - I can furnish you with a list.) It is not my job, I think, to be be concerned that

his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all

.If anybody else wishes to do that, they may of course do so. As far as I can see a large number of Keene's tournament victories and organisational achievements are already present - if there is material missing in that section, then by all means add it. But why relevant biographical material should actually be deleted, I cannot imagine.

Of course the real point may be that prior to my additions, the piece gave a very onesided views of what has been a very controversial career, and left a lot of things out. Well, a lot things have now been added to rectify that picture, and you now how a proper, properly-referenced, factually-accurate piece. I think this is what Wikipedia is for. Why anybody should complain about "way too much detail" is beyond me. The article is in immensely better shape than it was before. You are invited to compare both the number and density of footnotes - and for that matter, the layout - with what existed bfore. I say so myself, but it is vastly superior. Add positive detail if you wish, but otherwise, leave properly-researched material be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A "satirical" publication is generally not a good source for a biography, and a blog, regardless of your opinion of its author, is almost never an acceptable source (see WP:RS). You should also take a look at WP:SPA and WP:BLP. It's hard to look at your edits to the article without getting the feeling that you have a strong personal antipathy for Keene, and that's not a good basis on which to edit a biography. The idea that you would "put" anything to the sources you use also suggests that you are too close the sources, if not the subject, of the article, so you may also need to read WP:COI. You may find this hard to believe, but a wikipedia biography is not an indiscriminate collection of every criticism of the subject that can be found (see WP:UNDUE). Quale (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You say:

The idea that you would "put" anything to the sources you use also suggests that you are too close [to] the sources

Sorry, this is silly. I think that if longstanding publications, leaders in their field, are described as not being acceptable sources, then I think they might like to know that and other Wikipedia users might like to know that.

Is Private Eye, for instance, considered outside the range of proper sources in Wikipedia generally? If you have something that says so, then but all means provide it and the issue can be discussed more widely among the Wikipedia community. But I think its coverage of financial scandals is widely considered as good or better than any other in the UK. On the material on which it is cited, there could not be a much better source.

Kingpin, by the while, is a leading source for discussion of Ray Keene. No biography of the man would omit to read and cite it. But, you know, there are 47 references in there at present (not all of which I originated). A wide variety of publications are cited. This is good practice. Some of those publications aren't so fond of the subject of the piece. This does not make them unworthy of citation. That would be bad practice. (Incidentally, both Kingpin and the Eye were in the piece before I ever saw it. Oddly, they weren't "sources that would most likely fail" in all the long time that they were there before my editing. So please, don't anybody tell me they're suddenly out of line.)

A "good basis on which to edit a biography" is, actually, scrupulous research. This is what I have provided, which is something that was noticeably absent from large parts of the piece before I began to edit. I take strong issue at your use of the term "indiscriminate", given the standard to which my work has been compiled and the comparison with what went before it. "Indiscriminate" indeed. As I said, if you or anybody thinks that everything would could be put in, has been put in, then ask me for a list of what is not, at present, in there.

I'm afraid I don't think it's in order for you to speculate on what my personal opinion of Ray Keene may be since actually, that's not of muuch relevance - as you are surely aware, many Wikipedia articles are edited (and many or most biogaphies written) by people who have strong opinions on the subjects of the pieces they edit, and if this were not so they probably wouldn't bother. The actual issue is the strength of the information provided. Mine is scrupulous, something which could not be said of the material with which I started.

Yes, most of what I have added has been on the subject of controversies - though you may want to ask who put the book list on order, correcting the numerous errors - because that was precisely what was missing before. There was a section, but it was small, lacked detail and lacked mention of all but a very few incidents in what has been a controversy-filled career. I have added some of this detail: when I began to do so the section became unwieldy and so some of the major controversies (and they really were major) have separate sections to aid readability. I make no apology for doing things in greater detail than was the case before: detail is what helps people understand what issues were about.

But, like I say, there's been a lot of issues. I'm sorry about that, but it's not my fault. What would be my fault is if I decide to leave things out, or remove them, because somebody felt it as unfair to the subject that there had been so many. If a player had won a huge stack of tournaments and awards, but had never offended a soul, would we cut out half their achievements because we felt that the article was becoming too imbalanced in favour of the positives? Of course we would not. But this being so, it's absurd to complain because the biography of a deeply controversial individual....er...lists controversies.

A few weeks ago this article was mediocre, shoddy, inaccurate, poorly-referenced and shapeless. It is now sharp, organised, detailed, superbly-referenced and readable. This happened because somebody with subject knowledge, researching skills and knowledge of referencing went to work on it. You don't like it? I don't, so much, like putting huge amounts of work into improving a piece beyond all recognition and then having people say they don't like it because they think it's too critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords (talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't agree that it is "superbly referenced" at all. I'm well aware of what Private Eye is. I'm a subscriber and I enjoy reading it. That doesn't mean it's suitable source material for an encyclopedia, particularly for a living person. By its very nature it relies on anonymous contributors and unattributed sources, which means what it publishes is unverifiable. I strongly urge you to read WP:BLP if you haven't already done so. it is a fundamental Wikipedia policy that cannot just be brushed aside. For example, it states, "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides." (The policy explicitly states that self-published blogs, as Mig Greengard's is, should never be used as sources). In my view he problem is not so much that "the biography of a deeply controversial individual lists controversies", it's that it goes into too much detail for an article in a general encyclopedia. Much of the Brain Games section, for example, is frankly dull to read and of little interest to anyone except David Levy. I understand that you've put a lot of work into the article, and you don't like people criticising what you've done, but that it is part and parcel of editing on Wikipedia. The fact is that four editors have expressed concern about the article as it stands now, and it needs to be resolved. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked if there as a policy at Wikipedia of not using Private Eye as a source: the answer appears to be that you don't like it, i.e. there is no such policy. Again, let me ask you to show me otherwise if you think so. (Incidentally the claim that what the Eye publishes is "unverifiable" - which incidentally in the instances referred to is not true - would apply just as much to an article in any newspaper: why you think it's particular to the Eye escapes me.) If there is no such policy I suggest that one not be created here. --Fewwords (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the Brain Games "dull to read and of little interest to anyone except David Levy" and I'd be interested in your reasons for saying so. I think it's arguably the single most serious and controversial episode of Keene's career. The material on it is from more than one source, these sources are not obscure (the Chess Café, the Eye and so on) and have been in unchallenged circulation a long time: I cannot see how their reliability can be improved upon. The précis could not in my view be much shorter without robbing the reader of the opportunity to actually understand what the fuss was about.

And so on. The facts are that:

a. all the material that has been introduced is properly referenced ;

b. none of it is obscure ;

c. all of it is known to the subject of the article and the chess world in general.

All of it, to use the phrase above, is "relevant to the subject's notability". It was written and compiled with great care, hence the number of edits that have been made. My view is that there is nothing to be resolved except essentially groundless complaints that the article has too much critical material in it. Yes, there's a lot - but that is part and parcel of writing about a controversial figure. (I'll say again, there have actually been many more controversies than are mentioned in the piece.)

It is now a far more accurate, far more informative and far better referenced article than it was before - and this being so I see neither general nor specific grounds for making any substantial alterations. If anybody wishes to make specific alterations, by all means let them propose them. I have no objection to that nor any business having any such objection. If anybody wishes to introduce more positive material about the subject I of course have no objection whatsoever nor any business having any such objection. Provided it is properly sourced. But as it stands I'm not going to pretend that I agree to objections to what has, in fact, been carefully-compiled and scruplously-referenced material which I believe far exceeds the general standard of material appearing on Wikipedia. Fewwords (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords (talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• There has been a large amount of criticism of Keene in the chess media, and to the extent that is properly sourced it is appropriate for the article to mention such criticism. As it stands, however, the article goes into way too much detail and looks like a "hit piece" on Keene rather than an encyclopedia article. Krakatoa (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said more than once above, I don't really understand the "too much detail" complaint: you need a certain amount of detail to make the issues comprehensible to the reader. Moreover you do actually need to give some examples: you can't, for instance, say that Keene is accused of copying material from one book to another, or not checking facts, and not actually give some "for instances". One might as well say "Keene was credited with writing some good books earlier in his career" but not actually mention Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal, or Flank Openings. (Actually, come to think of it, where's Becoming A Grandmaster in the book list? I always liked that one.) --Fewwords (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many more details of the controversies than is needed. The article is very unbalanced with that regard. The article shouldn't be a hatchet job on Keene. Bubba73 (talk), 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, much of your work is commendable, hence editors are perhaps reluctant to focus on specifics when, to some extent, it is the sum of the parts that is causing concern, rather than many of the individual parts themselves. Nevertheless, if concerns remain then they need to be addressed sooner rather than later and inevitably, it comes down to examining the individual parts. If we do not come up with a version that everyone can live with now, then future editors will doubtless prune the article without the benefit of this debate. Indications are, that fellow editors are currently not comfortable with the use of Kingpin, Private Eye and chess blogs in the context of controversial material. These publications have a light-hearted, dismissive, trivial and often anonymous way of poking fun at their subject - this may be okay for a newspaper or magazine who doesn't mind fighting the odd court case, but can hardly be construed as encyclopedic. As we are obliged by Wikipedia policies to remove sensitive material borne of 'questionable' sources without delay, then these items are prime candidates for removal, in my opinion. Ignoring any crossover for now, I would also argue that some items are simply not so notable as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, for example (i) a (Keene's Company) press release that erroneously talked about Chinese grandmasters when there are none - Keene would definitely have known this, so apparently it's someone else's mix-up and hardly noteworthy here (ii) Kramnik at BrainGames not getting paid straight away, but then getting paid later - again not much of a story, is it? (iii) Keene's profile copied from Wikipedia without acknowledgement - big deal, this is commonplace on the web, there are no copyright issues, so what's the fuss? (iv) Mohammed Amin saying that Keene doesn't keep his sponsors - a bit harsh isn't it? - he gets them - he lays on a big budget, top-notch chess event in an ever-changing economy where money is generally not available for chess - and the article can only criticise the fact that he doesn't keep his sponsors. Who does keep their sponsors? - they all move on when they realise they get very little return from chess (v) Keene describing himself as Mahler to Kasparov's Beethoven - that's a throwaway line in a spontaneous interview - what's notable about that? As well as these non-notables, I would also take issue with the duplication of material in the Ed. Winter passage … man without scruples … resigned from BCF … plagiarised Donaldson - these all appear elsewhere in the article and such duplication creates unnecessary imbalance and contributes to the feeling that a personal attack is being prosecuted here. Finally, as you appear to concede yourself, a few of Keene's books have, over the years, received some favourable reviews - off the top of my head - his treatises on Nimzowitsch, Stein and Petrosian as well as Flank Openings, were all well received at the time - probably, these have also been reviewed by notable people like IM John Watson, so why does the article feature only hostile reviews from the likes of Justin Horton (who he?) of Kingpin? Brittle heaven (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestions. I would remove the "Quotations" section entirely. As Brittle Heaven says, it repeats a lot of information, and I don't think such a section is that encyclopedic - aren't they better on WikiQuote? I would also shorten the Brain Games section, as I said above. It's too detailed for the general reader. We don't need to know every figure for every purchase Keene made: it quickly becomes tedious to read. And I'm not keen on the way everything is bullet-pointed - I would re-write in paragraphs as the manual of style suggests.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the material added is very relevant to an author or an organiser of chess events. It is probably essential for a balanced article. However the quotations section is quite lame. It doesn't mention the excellent claim Ray Keene made about having been British Champion (circa) 23 times - Ray counted all the schools, team, age group categories. I think Private Eye and Kingpin are respectable sources, I am not sure about Mig Greengard myself. He is certainly a respected Journalist - but can we rely on a blog as a source? --ZincBelief (talk) 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone's a respected journalist, I don't think the fact that he's writing on a blog should transmute him from a reliable source into an unreliable source. We cite Winter all the time, he's unquestionably a reliable source, and his Chess Notes - which is most often what we cite - is very similar to a blog. It's not in inverse chronological order and the entries don't have dates on the top of them, but other than that it looks a lot like a blog. Krakatoa (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that in the most important respects that Chess Notes is like a blog. Chess Notes is largely reports of Edward Winter's research on chess topics, often from primary sources (birth, death, and census records, tournament bulletins, etc.) and presumably high quality secondary souces (contemporary newspaper accounts and the like). Winter also "shows his work", as he scrupulously lists his sources. Blogs generally consist largely of unsourced opinion and hearsay. Also, Chess Notes has not been entirely self-published. I believe at one time it was distributed by FIDE, and at other times it has been syndicated in other chess publications. Winter has also published many of his notes in book form, and these definitely qualify as WP:RS reliable sources. The primary areas where Winter's opinions affect his writing is in his choice of topics and the emphasis he places on them, which are certainly somewhat idiosyncratic.[6] Winter also perhaps shows some bias in taking sides in certain cases, such as Alekhine v. Capablanca and Kasparov v. Karpov. Quale (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that "[b]logs generally consist largely of unsourced opinion and hearsay." Many do, but some others are carefully researched, scrupulously sourced and tightly reasoned. I object to any per se rule that "blogs are not reliable sources." Some are, some aren't - much like books, although I would agree that the average blog entry is not as well-researched or as thoroughly considered as the average book. But whether one's talking about blogs or books, there will be a wide continuum that ranges from unsourced garbage on one end to scholarly work on the other. Krakatoa (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I think taken over the entire universe of blogs, more are unsourced opinion and hearsay than are carefully researched, and thus, the "generally" qualifier I used applies. I don't deny that there are many carefully researched blogs, but I don't think that describes the majority. The fact that blogs are in general less reliable than books is precisely the point. Self-published books also get extra scrutiny, as they should. See WP:SPS for WP:V has to say about this. I created a section at Talk:Raymond Keene#Reliable sources to discuss reliable sources concerns specific to that article. Quale (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So the article has been reworked. Casting an eye over it, it does look balanced to me. Positive stuff at the start, Negative stuff at the end. Felt close to 50:50 to me on a quick scroll. Negatives all pertained to the content of positives as well - which is of course desirable!--ZincBelief (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)