Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Sports festivals

Some time ago User:Nickst added categories such as Category:Sports festivals in Norway and Category:Sports festivals in India to various chess articles, including World Chess Championship 2013 and Chess World Cup 2013. The page Sports festival redirects to the article Multi-sport event, which says: "A multi-sport event is an organized sporting event, often held over multiple days, featuring competition in many different sports between organized teams of athletes from (mostly) nation-states." Neither a World Chess Championship or a Chess World Cup consist of "many different sports"; only chess is being played there. Thus, I think these categories should be removed, but I would welcome feedback from others on this matter. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User behaviour

(Personal attack removed) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Can we please keep this page a place to discuss chess-related content on Wikipedia? Remarks addressed only to one person should be made on that person's talk page: the rest of us are not interested. Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't "speak for" me, Cobblet. I'm interested. That said, you're right, the issue belonged on User Talk. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Either way, it's quite impressive that a comment that was not a violation of WP:CIV has been deleted as a "personal attack", and nobody appears to object to that. For some reason, the post with the word "anal" still remains here. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
And I don't think that this is very helpful either "flush". Talkingfacts2 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Talkingfacts2 (talk · contribs) is a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct. It seems he doesn't even try to hide it. I suppose he must have some other socks that aren't so blatantly obvious. Quale (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkingfacts2 is blocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Different fraction

What do you think of this edit? I've never seen fractions displayed like that in chess literature, but maybe it has been used by some writers. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edit. Fractions aren't used that way. The score was seven points out of nine, not seven ninths. Quale (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. (Confusing, and technically incorrect.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't like it either. It really stands for "7 out of 9", not "seven ninths". What if he scored 7-1/2 out of 9?? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It's simple arithmetic: obviously 71⁄2/9 = 15⁄18, even though only 9 rounds were played. A score of 6/9 would be reported as 2⁄3, and logic requires that we report a 9/9 score as 1. Quale (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope you are joking. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Obviously 71⁄2/9 = 5⁄6 MaxBrowne (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I was carless—Max is right. A few weeks ago someone changed ½–½ to 1⁄2–1⁄2 on a few chess pages. I reverted those too. It's partly a cosmetic issue since the fraction spoils the line spacing, but I also changed them back because I view ½ in a game score to be an atomic symbol that is understood and digested in one piece, not divisible into parts. Quale (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
This is where I show complete ignorance of editing basics. Last time I looked, the ½ symbol seemed to have been erased from the character subsets ( - the one I just used was copy-pasted!). So where do we now get it from? Obviously, I'm missing a trick here. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a cry'in shame. (It s/b in Help:Wiki markup and WP:MOSNUM. MOS:FRAC seemingly talks against it, but I discussed this w/ Bubba at Talk:Boris Spassky.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I was also disappointed that the fractions disappeared from the editing toolbar. You can use the ½ HTML entity, optionally followed by previewing and pasting the result back into the page if you would like the page source to use the Unicode character rather than the entity. This is a little easier than finding the Unicode symbol to copy from a different chess page or by googling. The MOS has long discouraged use of Unicode fractions. Although I agree that Unicode fractions are poor choices in many contexts, I think they are better for chess scores than the alternatives. Quale (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I had hoped it was just my stupidity, but sadly not. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See List of Internet chess servers. Is there something that can be done to put an end to this "redlink-pushing"? I'm not even going to take it to WP:RPP, because protection would be dismissed due to "insufficient disruptive editing". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm in agreement. There's no requirement that every entry in a list article have a wikipedia page, nor does every entry have to meet notability requirements. This is exactly analogous to the treatment of individual sentences in a non-list article. See my edit, and I also wrote a bit about my opinion of the matter some months ago on the talk page. The biggest agitator to keep chess.com off that list (and in fact erase any mention of chess.com anywhere on wikipedia) was Wiki brah. Quale (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Should we bite the bullet, create the article and be prepared for an onslaught of sockpuppets then? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This is what we are up against: [https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Chess.com] &[https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Vandal/How-to]. Yep, some people have a lot of time on their hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Go for it. That the primary detractors were now banned and/or socks is a pretty good reason for recreation. PS: This is likely the reason you linked to those two pages above, but to state the obvious so people don't have to dig: they're primarily authored by wiki brah. --— Rhododendrites talk |  03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The detractors can detract all they want, but if the article was well sourced, it would have been kept. I'm all for re-creation; I would just make sure you have something solid before pulling the trigger.
Regarding whether an item without an article should be on List of Internet chess servers, I'm not aware of a policy on this. I think it would depend on the nature of the list. But in this case, I think you absolutely DO want that restriction. Otherwise, you're asking for the list to be overrun with non-notable COI additions. --SubSeven (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
If that were to happen, action could be taken. Looking at the history of the page, I see no evidence that this has been an issue so far. Quale (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree. (The corresponding chess principle is: "Only respond to real threats, not imagined ones.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced article

I have severe concerns about the quality of the article List of chess games. Please see my comments at Talk:List of chess games#Inclusion. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship game 9

General discussion, do you think that Anand simply picked up the wrong piece in game 9 on his 28th move? Right after he did it his hand jerked, as if perhaps he picked up the wrong piece. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging by what he said at the press conference after the game, it doesn't seem to have been the case. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (Anand: "[...] as soon as I put the knight down, I finally saw what I had done.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC).
Resolved

In the video, it looked like his hand jerked right afterward. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of world chess champions

Comments are welcome at Talk:World Chess Championship 2013#"20th world champion" and Talk:World Chess Championship#Numbering in Reigns of the champions. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2013

View hits. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz. Someone wake me up when it's all over. (Maybe we'll have 1 or 2 exciting games. I like Fischer's conditions: first to win 10; draws don't count!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Draws never do "count" in a one on one match. Decisive games are the exception rather than the rule between top grandmasters, and good luck finding a venue and sponsors for an open-ended match with no definite end date. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
They "count" in the sense that, each draw inches closer to the end of the match (so if a player is 1 game ahead, he is apt to seek draws, since draws are in his advantage match-wise; in Fischer's conditions, draws are truely worth nothing - a player has to win x number of games; and perhaps the necessity to play for wins would draw more interest, more ticket-paying spectators, counter-balancing the drawback you named). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If I know my chess history correctly, the "only wins count" format was abandoned due to the World Chess Championship 1984. If you look through the archives of those games you will see plenty of short draws there as well. (Chess Life even had a page covering many of those short draws, unannotated. The page was entitled "Sleeping pills".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. But in that format, players eventually must play for wins to earn x wins. (In the "draws-creep-to-end-of-match" format, after 1 point ahead, there's no compulsion to press for even one more win.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Another voice in support for Fischer's format. I dunno, but the large number of short draws make all the excitement fizzle out at the beginning... Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An unlimited number of games is not practical. Remember the first Karpov-Kasparov match? They played for 5 months with no decision. There were 40 draws in 48 games - many of them short. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The "first to win x number of games" format also gives a slight advantage to the player who has white first. However, maybe there could be a hybrid format - first one to win x games, with a limit of y games at that time control. If it is tied after y games, then either the champion retains his title or there are rapid tiebreakers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
And of course Fischer did not originate that format. It had been used in quite a few world championship matches before. Looking at world championship history, I don't see any evidence at all that first to win 6 or 10 games matches are more exciting than best of n as long as n is not too small. Anyway it was not one of Fischer's better ideas. First to win 6 games is completely impractical in modern chess, and the very first time the format was used in a match with participants of equal strength it was a catastrophe. K vs. K 1984 was not wonderful for spectators or participants. It was bad for chess, and even had the match continued to a conclusion it would not really have been any better. Quale (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Game 3: Exciting game #1! (But whoever loses might end up looking stupid re the a2-pawn. [So I'd like this game to be a draw; because neither player is "stupid"!]) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen after the game 8 draw: "I did not particularly mind the draw as was evident from my play." And: "With the line I chose there was not too much to think about. The moves very much suggest themself. It has been played before. There wasn’t too much to think about. I wasn't in any mood to think either." (I wonder if his approach would have been the same in a 'first to win x games' format. He was White in game 8. The draw obviously puts more pressure on Anand in the current format. But has no advantage in the other format except bypassing a chance as White when one isn't "in any mood to think".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That format is interesting, but has two big problems: first, the player who starts the match with the white pieces gets an unfair advantage (which is why I would favour the "win by +2 idea" [although without privileges for the reigning world champion]), and second, sponsorship for a match of undefined duration would be hard to find even in Russia. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The color issue can mostly be eliminated by going WBBWWBBWW, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See here's what I mean ... from WP commentary on the final game: "Maintaining the tension with 30.Nc3, 30.Ng3, or 30.b4 should have given White a winning game, but Carlsen erred with 30.exd6, releasing the tension and allowing Anand to recoup the pawn soon after." (Does anyone really think Carlsen "erred" in not seeing three other more aggressive move options? The draw secured his championship. Playing for x wins would have spelled a more exciting game continuation at move 30.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he erred at move 30. He could have taken a draw and won the championship. Instead he was playing for a win, even though he didn't need to. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Five moves later all major pieces were off the board. He could have taken a draw - what line do you mean, was there one more drawish? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Carlsen could have taken a draw in the last game and won the WC. (My pre-game prediction was a draw in 24 moves.) Instead he played for a win, when he didn't have to. So that kind of disproves the point that people will only play for wins in the "first to win x games" format. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Carlsen could have taken a draw - again (I think you missed my Q the first time), what line are you referring to (that Carlsen could have taken for a draw, but didn't)? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not referring to any particular line. He could have played for a draw. He didn't - he played for a win, until, as he said, after a time control when the calculations were too complicated. And he said that at the time, he thought that the 30th move he made was winning. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Carlsen addresses this in the first or second question in his part of the news conference. He says that he misses something simple. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
From listening to the press conference, Carlsen missed that 30.exd6 wasn't as good as he thought it was. In the video that Bubba73 links to, the relevant part is at 1.19.20. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

FIDE Federations Rankings

I share Quale's opinion (expressed on the talk page) that this article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2013≤ (UTC)
Might be ok if we had people willing to go through the laborious process of keeping the article up to date... but people can just go to the FIDE site for that info so why bother? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Igor-Alexandre Nataf

See what you think. Please don't violate WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! in critiquing it. :) WikiVampires and Wikilawyers bring me down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I would recommend that you supplement those team and world championship results with some regular international tournament results. Mostly, I use the Polish wiki for this purpose as User:Pjahr over there (and here!) has a very good grasp of tournament results. I'd probably refrain from adding too many, as it may unbalance a short article, but Nataf has been particularly active in Reykjavik, Stockholm and Montreal, so I would probably just focus on them - also, his European Youth Ch. success in Rimavská Sobota - I'd probably add/reference that one per Pjahr initially and then switch to an English source later, if one can be found. If you are agreeable, I am happy to add these results myself, as I have some time available. The article should be added to Index of chess articles if you haven't done so already. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice start. There's a very short blurb on Nataf in the intro to Nunn-Nataf in The World's Greatest Chess Games that might possibly be useful, at least as a source to cite for the game. Also Nunn's Understanding Chess Move By Move (p. 70) says it was issue 75 rather than 76 of Informator that awarded the prize. Cobblet (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an articles for deletion discussion on Nataf going on right now. The problem is, that there to be no "reliable" real sources in the article at all. Look at the sources listed. I myself voted to delete it. If Tiger Lilov is unwelcome here even with many reliable sources why should this gentleman be on here? Tiger Lilov is a famous commentator and video producer and star in his native Bulgaria and tout le Monde where people play chess. Valeri Lilov (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess annotation symbols

A fairly important question (though related specifically to this revert): are unsourced chess annotation symbols contrary to WP:NPV (as well as WP:OR)? The edit summary "actually 14...Nxf2 rather than 17... Rxf2 looks like the outstanding move of the game, at least to this amateur" ([1]) is not in line with "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (taken from the NPV page). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • In general, I agree we should not be in the business of adding these annotation symbols on our own accord. In the specific case that you mention, the article says that the game was annotated in Chess Informant 76. If that source (or some other source) uses the "!!", I am OK with including it in the Wikipedia article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've never seen evaluative annotation symbols in a chess WP article without either a source specified or implied. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. A trickier and perhaps related issue is picking a diagram position when putting up a game (assuming a diagram is helpful or appropriate and improves the article in question). (On the one hand a diagram position sort of contains the implied message that the position chosen is critical, important, or interesting, and deserves the reader's attention .... which is sort of evaluative. [So would such a choice require a source, i.e. a source which also chose that specific position to diagram?] On the other hand a diagram can be helpful to corroborate/confirm that someone playing over the moves has done so correctly to that point, and if the diag caption contains nothing emphasizing that the diag'd position is somehow a critical or important position, then I really can't see a harm or counter-WP policy for an editor to simply pick the position him/herself. [But maybe one shouldn't be selected by the editor if there is a diagram choice available that is sourceable, even if the source chose that position without any particular comment indicating the position is critical/important!?]) Just some thoughts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Diagram placement is not original research because it has not introduced any new information that is not apparent from the game score. The fact that it emphasises a certain point is true of just about everything we put in when we write articles. In almost all cases the aggregate information contained in the sources far exceeds the information that will make its way into the article, and the decision of what to include, what to focus on in particular detail, and what to leave out altogether, is an editorial decision based largely on common sense, not a decision that can be "looked up" in the sources. The articles we publish on Wikipedia should not contain original research, but they should be original (i.e. not plagiarism) and they should be the result of research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I think the following Rfc is relevant to this project. Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels#Request_for_comment_-_autoconfirmed_status_to_nominate_an_article_for_deletion

My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to try to not let sockpuppet vandals get you down. They are annoying, but eventually they get bored and go away. Even this extremely persistent gnat can't cause any permanent damage unless he aggravates you enough to stop contributing, so I hope you don't let that happen. Quale (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history, redux

While we're talking about WP:NPOV/WP:OR, what about this article? I'm of the opinion that the first table, which for some reason lists peak FIDE rating for precisely 21 players, is at the very least too long. I believe the only rating peaks that have received significant coverage in reliable sources are historical all-time highs like Fischer's 2785 rating (I'm sure I could find a number of sources that talk about how long that record stood for and how it was eventually broken by Kasparov) and ratings over 2800 (one can Google "Topalov 2800" or "Kramnik 2800" to see examples of news coverage). Also, I believe the last table, which counts the number of times a player defended a world championship title and the number of years they reigned, because these are allegedly "considered by some as a measure of chess greatness", is an original synthesis of information and should be removed. What do you guys think? Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Five years ago I argued on the article talk page that the highest ratings list shouldn't be trimmed very much, but I have been wavering on that point for a while now. I'm not sure what to do with it. Eventually Fischer won't even be in the top 20, so some change will be needed.
On your second point I agree the world champions table is a problem. There is some discussion of this on the article talk page although no consensus was reached. Although it's likely that it is true the number of titles and length of reign is "considered by some to be a measure of greatness", it isn't cited. The table is very hard for someone to understand if they aren't familiar with the ugly split in the title (Undisputed, FIDE, and Classical columns). Maybe instead of a table, a few (say three to five) of the world champions with the longest reigns could be discussed in a paragraph or two in the text. Quale (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify my views on the first table: I suppose it's meant to illustrate the point that "one way to compare players of different eras is to compare their Elo ratings". But the subsequent discussion basically contradicts this idea, e.g. "Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras." In light of that, I don't think such a lengthy table squares with NPOV. I agree with your points on the last table—I might take a stab at fixing that at some point. Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

notability of grand masters

Is there a guideline for chess player notability? Must we rely solely on WP:GNG? Dlohcierekim 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the latest article on that French Grand Master fails as such. I think we need more relaxed standards for notability a departure from standard general laws of Wikipedia for chess articles. Many important chess articles have been forced to be deleted recently because of this. Such as Tiger Lilov who is a very well liked chess instructor, actor, and media personality in Bulgaria, Russia, and Greece and many parts of the world. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For clarify, as the topic title implies the content is about Grandmaster(GM). Tiger Lilov is NOT a GM; while Igor Nataf is a GM. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Two most recent related Project threads/discussions are Notability problems preventing player coverage, and Chess notability, FYI. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on the second of the two discussions, "Chess notability," it seems as if there is not a consensus as to whether all Grandmasters are notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Comments like "there are too many Grandmasters not all of them can be notable" and such. I do not think this French GM has any coverage in the media. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd welcome a discussion on a policy for chess players on WP:ATHLETE. I believe the position that all grandmasters are notable is reasonable. In this particular case, I'll note that Nataf is known to be Radjabov's second - see this interview for example. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good paragraphs from "Athelete": A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse.Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage.

Being Radjabov's second is more of a trivial fact, how does that make anyone suddenly so important that they can get an article? Also, Tiger Lilov is a famous television, film, and internet persona in the same areas where Radjabov practices but he is more likely be known by millions of people tout le Monde where chess is known. Especially in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, the Balkans, Romania, Serbia. Basic rules like multiple non trival sources are still the basic rule. Valeri Lilov (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nataf is a GM, has represented France in international competition, competed in world championships, played one of the most famous games in the 1990's, and is a second for a world championship candidate. All of these facts can be cited to reliable sources. Your statement that Lilov is "famous" cannot. If you're going to troll, at least try a little harder. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify one point WP:GNG is primarily an inclusionary guide, not so much an exclusionary guide. If one meets GNG, one is notable. However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG. The problem here is not the notability of the subject but the lack of an appropriate guideline. I just can see putting under athlete. Dlohcierekim 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


How about we create a guide line and put it on the main page project page? Here's my first stab at it:


"Chess players are generally considered notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria. However please note that this is only a guideline, not a set of rules to be followed rigidly.

  • Grandmasters
  • Players who have qualified for an Interzonal, candidates tournament or world championship tournament
  • Finalists in the national championship of a major chess playing country
  • National champions of International Master strength or better
  • Players who have represented a major chess playing country at an Olympiad or other national team event
  • Players who have at some point in their career been rated among the world's top 100 players
  • Prominent chess authors, chess magazine editors and chess columnists
  • Prominent chess trainers
  • Prominent chess problem and endgame composers
  • Players who have received significant coverage in the mainstream news for chess-related activity"

MaxBrowne (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also correspondence players, arbiters, and maybe organizers. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I have always thought that project-specific notability guidelines are usually a mistake, and that WP:GNG should be sufficient in nearly all cases. I think my view is in the minority here, as many people have suggested over several years that a chess guideline is needed. I still think that our experience with WP:AFD is that very few notable chess biographies are deleted (I can only think of one off hand, and that was an article on a chess journalist that wasn't very well sourced) and few non-notable chess biographies are kept. Lilov and Wiki brah would still be annoyances even if we had chess-specific guideline, but if other chess editors want to develop such a guideline I won't stand in the way. Quale (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to add that the project must be very careful if it develops such a guideline. Any guideline will be used to argue for article deletion as well as retention, so make very sure that the guideline doesn't exclude any biographies that you think should be kept. Quale (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think such a notability guideline could be used to argue for deletion of an otherwise notable topic—WP:ATHLETE is very clear that "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline." In my mind, the main purpose of such a guideline is to allow us to SNOW close AfDs where a clear consensus to keep has already been established (e.g. all FIDE grandmasters). WP:ATHLETE suggests that in developing a new guideline, we should "consider what criteria that, if met, nearly 100% guarantees the sports figure will have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources." In the spirit of that, I'd suggest a shorter list of criteria than MaxBrowne's (in particular, a "prominent" person is essentially tantamount to "a person who satisfies WP:GNG", so it isn't necessary to say that again), so I'd propose something more like this:

  • Holders of the FIDE or ICCF GM titles
  • Players who have qualified for a FIDE Interzonal, World Cup, Grand Prix, Candidates tournament or world championship tournament, or the analogous events for the FIDE Women's World Championship cycle
  • Players who have won the unsegregated (neither by age nor by sex), over-the-board championship of any national federation with at least 10 FIDE grandmasters in its history according to the count provided by FIDE's website, or players who have represented such a federation at the FIDE Olympiad
  • Players who hold the FIDE IM title and have won the unsegregated, over-the-board championship of any national federation

The "10 FIDE grandmasters" is my attempt to define a "major chess playing country." (Alternative definitions, e.g. one based on the total number of titled players, are equally possible.) And I prefer criteria based on titles and tournament results rather than ratings since ratings haven't been around as long. (For players who predate FIDE we'd have to fall back on WP:GNG anyway.) Regarding Bubba's suggestion, while I think any correspondence GM would be notable, I'm not convinced that all FIDE IAs, IOs, or ICCF IAs are also notable, so I'd prefer deferring to WP:GNG for arbiters/organizers in general. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

An arbiter for a world championship or other top level event would probably qualify as notable, not so sure about an arbiter for an ordinary GM tournament. Arbiters for top level events are often strong players in their own right anyway (e.g. Lothar Schmid) and would qualify as notable on that basis.
Your criteria involving FIDE titles won't work so well for historical chess figures. Besides the players who died before 1950, there were a number of players, particularly in the Soviet Union, who were clearly of IM, perhaps GM strength but never received a FIDE title (e.g. Alexander Koblencs, Igor Platonov). Chessmetrics is a decent source for pre-FIDE ratings, some argue that the chessmetrics ratings are more accurate.
As far as potential for abuse goes, we could state explicitly that this is a guide as to what should be included rather than what should be deleted. Then next time a new user shows up and nominates an article about a GM for deletion we can just point to the guideline and move on. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Your first point was precisely what I was trying to say: just because a person does not satisfy the criteria we've listed does not mean they don't satisfy WP:GNG—the people you mention clearly do. There's no universally accepted way to determine who was of "GM strength" and who was not, so I don't think that sort of wording should appear in the guideline. Your second point is exactly how WP:ATHLETE is intended to be used, if I'm reading the guideline correctly. Again, the guideline isn't meant to replace WP:GNG for games/sports-related biographies; its purpose is only to establish that "if the article does meet the criteria set forth... then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Your lists of guidelines are way too loose. The guidelines are supposed to be a sport-specific guide to which types of articles meet GNG and which don't. I would say that none of the categories listed would meet GNG except maybe Grandmasters, and even then not too often. You also do realise that AFD gets participation from the entire internet right? People outside of the "Wiki Chess" or whatever get to weigh in, so if you propound these guidelines that don't meet GNG you're just gonna be in for a rude awakening. Just for the record, the above statment of "However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG." is completely wrong. You can't subvert GNG with a genre-specific guideline. Gameof ThronesGuy (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but why would a new account want to get involved in this discussion? Just wondering. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Incredible

This is incredible. In the 1960 Olympiad, 14th Chess Olympiad, Smyslov and Petrosian were reserve players! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Keene illustration

If anyone's interested: Talk:De ludo scachorum#Keene's illustration. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com (yes, again!)

The article Chess.com has just been recreated. Unfortunately it was created by an incompetent editor, so unless it is improved soon, it will find itself at the AfD page in the blink of an eye. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne/sandbox MaxBrowne (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: copied it over. thanks --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Portable Chess Notation deletion debate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portable Chess Notation. SpinningSpark 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

First Saturday

I think the regular "First Saturday" event in Budapest should have its own article. It's been running for 20 years now. While some deride these tournaments as "norm factories" they've been a training ground for many well known GM's. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure if it still runs, but similarly popular with norm seekers was the Third Saturday tournament in Belgrade/Beograd. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

KnightCap notable?

Does KnightCap establish its notability? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Use of Temporal Differences (machine learning) was quite unusual and experimental at the time. Gets quite a lot of google hits if you want to improve the refs. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

SPA

Does anyone know what is the deal with this? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing pattern suggests a possible Conflict of Interest. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Good resource for tournament results

This site (run by the Italian chess federation I think) covers a lot of major tournaments going back to the 70's. It's particularly good for world junior, U18, U16 etc championships. It's in Italian but that doesn't really matter if you're citing a crosstable. torneionline.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Wall is not a reliable source.

I will tag any articles I see that cite Bill Wall with {{Verify credibility|failed=y}}, which comes out as "[unreliable source]". Edward Winter gives several examples of Bill Wall making stuff up or embelishing stories, or just being plain wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more background on this? Almost every source with lots of information has factually incorrect information. Almost all news media occasionally have embellishing stories and plenty of things that are plain wrong, that doesn't normally result in removal of all references of it. I'm concerned we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Bill Wall's articles are self-published on an old geocities site. They do not cite original sources, have no editorial oversight and repeat a lot of rumours and legends as if they were facts. As Winter points out, the best sources for historical chess information (contemporary news reports, statements by witnesses to the events) aren't really found on the internet, but they can still be cited. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Are we talking about Bill Wall's published work as an author and journalist, or the self-published information on his personal website? The former is an RS, the latter is not. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Volokitin

Toccata quarta and I disagree on the relevance of Andrei Volokitin's (earlier) victories over the current world champion. Could some-one else chime in on this issue, please. Kdammers (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention Volokitin's record against Carlsen unless specific mention of this fact has been made in reliable sources (perhaps because the two have some sort of notable rivalry against each other, to name one hypothetical reason; but AFAIK they don't). Imagine: if we do it for Volokitin, why not do it for all chess players who have played against Carlsen? And should we then remove all such mentions as soon as Carlsen is dethroned, and do it for all the people who've played the new world champion? And on and on it goes... Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
My reasoning is that Carlsen is extraordinarily dominant, yet this one player has a very strong record against him. that seems to me significant.If things change in the future, that's an issue for the future. Kdammers (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
But you neglected to mention that the two players have not met since 2008 and that the last of Volokitin's wins came in 2006, when Carlsen was only 2600. The way you wrote it made it sound like he had achieved the record while Carlsen was world champion, which is false. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable?

Erik Kislik (chess player). I am not really sure that this chess player is notable. MrsHudson (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A fair question; I'd say not. As a rough guideline for modern day players, we might typically say GM, or IM who has another claim to notability, such as a coach of top players or a prolific author. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that he is not notable enough for an article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Bubba73 and Brittle heaven. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 01:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Based on WP:GNG and the current state of the article, I'd say no. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Your current state of the article criterion for notability is simply wrong. From WP:Notability guideline:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. [...] if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If you had assumed good faith, you might have realized I meant that there is currently nothing in the article that demonstrates the subject's notability. But you are either unwilling or unable to make that inference—I don't know which it is with you anymore—so you choose to discredit me based on your own interpretation of my words. How predictable and tedious. Now go on and tell me how I've mischaracterized you. There are a number of people watching this forum, of course, but don't let that stop you. Cobblet (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
OK I can see what you meant now, but your ambiguous sentence, combined with your lack of understanding at the Chess.com AfD how WP:OTHERTHINGS is bogus/irrelevant argument for keep or delete, made me suppose you also did not know or understand WP notability policy in this case. (Not bad faith; just observing you. You also accused me of a personal attack against User:MaxBrowne, where that was ridiculous and untrue, and demonstrates you don't understand that policy as well. You can kindly get off my back with your condescending fake smears and reprimands, Cobblet!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If you had assumed good faith, you would not have made such a condescending supposition. I will not respond to your off-topic comments regarding our previous interactions, but am amused that you were again unable to resist the temptation to bring them up. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
And if you would have assumed good faith, then you would have been able to understand there was ample reason to suppose that your lack of understanding of policy & guidelines needed some helpful clue. (BTW as long as you think there's an audience judging me and I should venture to respond to your accuses if I dare, here's more example of your condescending and baloney patronizing: I'm disappointed that one of our most experienced editors stooped to the very name-calling he accuses the other editor of, and that it happened after what was actually a perfectly civil discussion. Do you mean which discussion resulted in said user MaxBrowne reverting his add at Sicilian Defence with editsum screw it. i try to improve this page, you just quibble over wordings. denigrating user Toccata for endeavoring to conscientiously follow WP:WTA!? A beautiful set of principles you're basing your condescending reprimands on, Cobblet.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Fascinating. You wouldn't happen to have something to say regarding the notability of Eric Kislik, would you? Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry Cobblet, I don't get your drift. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. Oh I think I get it: After failed fake attempts to accuse me of bad faith, disingenuousness, reprimand & humiliate me on this board, you now like to ... return to business!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Right! Stop that!
It's far too silly!
Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

Look at the file purporting to show a photograph from 1965. The file was uploaded to Wikimedia as "own work." Doesn't that mean the Wiki user took the photograph? Which would mean that he himself snapped that photograph in 1965, then later converted it to digital form, then uploaded it to Wikimedia over forty years later. That just doesn't sound right does it? I'll link to the photo.

Sopqhalfa (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The uploader is active on the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Обсуждение участника:Skytao, why not ask him. Or ask on Wikimedia commons, as the photo is currently available in every language. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 19:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking the Russian wikipedian may be a member of Osnos's family. He also supplied the 2006 photo. Anyway unless the copyright is challenged there's no reason not to assume good faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The GM list

It seems to me the List of chess grandmasters is updated in a somewhat haphazard fashion. When was it last fully up to date? We should be updating it every time FIDE issues a list of new GM titles. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucena/Philidor/Vančura

I've noticed some inconsistency on this in various articles. Sometimes they use "Lucena/w/e position", while others use "Lucena/w/e Position". What is the standard on this in English-language chess literature? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not it is a proper name, and I'm not sure. Fundamental Chess Endings does not cap "position". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A survey of some of the sources I have on hand:

  • Emms, The Survival Guide to Rook Endings (Everyman 1999), p. 16-19: "Lucena Position".
  • Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2nd ed., Russell 2008), p. 143: "Lucena Position"; p. 147-149: "Philidor position".
  • de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know (New in Chess 2008), p. 124-135: "Lucena Position", "Philidor Position" (but there is one case of "Philidor's position" on p. 125).
  • Grivas, Practical Endgame Play—Mastering the Basics (Everyman 2008), p. 50-54: "Lucena position", "Philidor position".
  • Makarov, The Endgame (Chess Stars 2007), p. 125: "Philidor's position".
  • Howell, Essential Chess Endings (Batsford 1997), p. 42-44: "Philidor method", "Philidor defence", "Philidor's defence"
  • Nunn, Secrets of Rook Endings (2nd ed, Gambit 1999), p. 111: "Lucena position".
  • Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (Siles Press 2007), p. 121-132: "Lucena Position", "Philidor Position".

So clearly there is no consistent standard. In such a situation my suggestion would be adhere to Wikipedia's preference for sentence-case capitalization (i.e. lower case). Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Index of chess articles

Index of chess articles has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles. If you are watching recent changes on that, you need to update it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Forbes Combe

I'm wondering if we could justify an article on this guy. It's certainly an interesting story, this obscure small town Scottish lawyer who hasn't played a serious game of chess in 6 years coming out of nowhere to win the British championship. Is that enough to establish him as notable? Before that, he was best known for losing a game in 4 moves at the olympiad. http://www.chessscotland.com/history/biographies/combe.htm MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I support an article for every winner of the British championship, as long as the subject meets WP:GNG. Two or three good sources should be enough to create an article. Apparently he has an obit in BCM Vol. 72 (1952), p. 106, but I don't have it. Quale (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems justifiable to me. I was wondering if him winning the British championship was a fluke, but Alexander, Abrahams, Winter, Golombek, Milner-Barry and Wade all competed and finished behind him, so definitely not. Cobblet (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Based heavily on the Chess Scotland article but rephrased to avoid copyvio. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a good addition to our chess bios. Quale (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Chessplaying?

Perhaps there's a better place for this, but do you WikiProject Chessfolk play online at all? I'm guessing based on recent events that not a whole lot of you play on Chess.com :) I haven't played much of anything in the last long while, but I have accounts on FICS and Chess.com. --— Rhododendrites talk |  23:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

ICC too. Better players, and slightly less blatant in their capitalism. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Mainly OTB, but some correspondence-type chess on Chesscorner.net. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been considering joining ICC again (I've had a few accounts over the years). I was a dedicated FICS user for about 15 years, but bughouse eats too much of my time and soul :) A couple friends invited me to chess.com a while back and it seemed like a decent way to get a fix without being distracted by the variants and chat stuff (I've never used the message boards). Maybe the WikiProject membership page could have a section for ICS usernames. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, speaking as a biased FICSer, ICC is the epitome of capitalism -- taking something that was free, closing it off, and charging for it...but that was a couple years ago. --— Rhododendrites talk |  15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Short moved

The article on Nigel Short has just been moved to Nigel Short (chess grandmaster) by User:Alfietucker. "Chess player" is actually the common practice for disambiguation in titles, but I believe here it does not matter, as the other Nigel Short does not appear to have the former Short's notability (judging by a quick Google search I did). Hence I think the page should be moved back. What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it requires admin intervention. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the article back to Nigel Short and linked to the new article by means of a hatnote. The difference in coverage the two subjects have received should make Nigel Short the chess player the primary topic that most searching for "Nigel Short" will be seeking. I should note however that the new article that Alfietucker made on Nigel Short the singer was by all means a well-written article with dilligent sourcing. I wish all new articles met that standard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Titles and dates in infobox

This edit raises an interesting issue. In my opinion other titles obtained by a player (e.g. Master of Sport of Russia, International Master, Woman Grandmaster, ICCF Grandmaster, Problem Solving Grandmaster, International Arbiter, FIDE trainer etc) are relevant biographical info and should be included in the infobox, along with the date they were obtained (if known). Could even expand the Infobox chess biography template to accommodate this if necessary. Thoughts? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to OTB playing titles, I'd probably stick with the most meritorious in the infobox, otherwise it will get very cluttered (the top women often go the route WFM, WIM, WGM, IM, GM for example), but the real issue lies with other, trickier titles, as you point out, like other FIDE titles held in parallel, such as IA or IO, or problem solving and correspondence titles. And where to stop? There would be the thorny issue of GM (emeritus/honorary) titles to consider. What about the British honours system ... would we have a place for CBE, OBE, MBE etc? Again, these have a hierarchy and the more prominent ones can be awarded after a lesser one has already been gained. Clearly, other countries have their own versions as well, not to mention the more medal-based award systems for being leading sportspeople, masters of their sport ... such as are prominent in the former Soviet states and in India among others. Academic titles such as Ph.D. or B.A./B.Sc. can also be earned the traditional way or awarded for achievement in the field of sport/chess (Miles and Short are just two recipients of these). And if we want to religiously put all these things in the box, who would research the dates and fight off all the trolls who will need proof of every last detail? Even something as simple as youngest ever IM title is causing trouble at the moment - an anon editor has recently removed Karjakin's claim which has been here and on Chessgames.com for a long time, but I cannot find a reliable source (can anyone help?) even though I'm fairly sure it is him. This particular issue stems from an argument on Chess.com, where one person contends the accolade belongs to an up-and-coming US player, as far as I can tell. In summary, it all sounds like a difficult struggle, but worth considering of course. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Interactive chess board

The Hebrew version of World Chess Championship 2013 contains an interactive chess board which allows the reader to go forward and back with the moves. How hard will it be to adapt it to enWiki to allow interactive chess boards in articles? Will it be feasible? (I dont see why not, but no harm in asking)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I came to know of it because of User:Yoavd. Maybe they could help with getting us a similar template for enWiki? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've already asked user קיפודנחש (kipod nakhash?) about it (he occasionally contributes to the English wikipedia). Not sure if he was the developer but he was the main author of the pgn template page. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I see we're a bit slow on the uptake. There have been several discussions at the Village pump but due mainly to inertia we have never adopted such a script for the English wikipedia. Here's some more info on the script anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There's even a subproject page... ok I'm way behind the eightball. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks very cool. They have a template over there which lets them just type "{{pgn|(game 1 in PGN)|(game 2 in pgn)}}" etc for up to 20 games. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
is MaxBrowne, or anyone else working on this? what can i do to push this forward? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
A bit of inertia here at the moment, with holidays coming up and all... and I don't have much in the way of javascript skills though I'm sure I could learn. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
i can take care of the scripting - the issue here is not so much the script, but rather how to push this through the approval process to make this a gadget, and hopefully, one day a default gadget (so it's available to anons). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
TheOriginalSoni, the script is here. to see it in action, add the line 
importScript('User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer.js');
to Special:MyPage/common.js, and view User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer demo. (note the game selector at top of page: this demo contains the first 9 games from 2013 world champoinship. in hewiki, this is packaged inside a template, so it looks slightly fancier - see he:אליפות העולם בשחמט 2013). let me know what you think. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • קיפודנחש (kipod) The script looks fine. But since most games are shown standalone and towards the right, how hard will it be to adapt this into a version that displays a single game while taking up lesser space (Maybe only the board and some buttons present, rather than the moves too).
Also, would it be possible to show the image of a single position from the game for anyone who does not have the script enabled? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
TheOriginalSoni: single game does not take significantly less space than multiple: all you save is the selector at the top. one possible way to "save" space is to use smaller default size for the board itself (you can use the slider to try different sizes, unless you use the abominable IE).
i do not think it's a good idea to hide the moves' list. as to showing an image of a single board for users without JS enabled: this is probably possible by using the {{Chess diagram}} within some "noscript" div (i.e., a div which is only visible to viewer with JS disabled). i don't remember the exact details of how to accomplish such a fit, but i'm 97.12% certain it's possible. if we are not really talking about "without JS" but rather "without the script", then this is definitely possible: the "script" includes some CSS (which actually reside in a different page that the script loads: User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer.css), and this CSS hides the actual content of the PGN list. without this CSS, the png list is visible, together with anything else...
of course, this whole thing will make much more sense once we package the raw DIVs currently on the demo page within a nice template (something similar to he:Template:pgn).
one thing i forgot to mention in the demo page is that the script allows the editor to decide at which move the board will be shown initially. i'll try to add this now.
one thing we do in hewiki to prevent the viewer from dominating the whole article by its sheer size, is to package it inside a collapsible div. see he:תחרות העל טאטא סטיל 2013 (this is the 2013 tata steel games): there are 13 different viewers, one for each of the 13 rounds of the competition. they are all packaged in collapsible divs (i'm sure you'll figure it out). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  1. Display a game taking up a size similar to the one displayed at, say, Vishwanathan_Anand#World_Champion_2008.
  2. For the readers without JS/your script, display just a static chess diagram at the given move (Here the final position)
  3. For the readers with your script, display a dynamic diagram which can allow to move forward and back between moves.
What do you think, and would it be possible to make by changing your script adequately? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
TheOriginalSoni: i am not sure what changes are you talking about exactly, and i'm not sure the changes you think should be made are actually improvements. i'd like, at the least, to have clearer and more detailed description of how you think this should look, and i'd like to hear some more people who agree that such changes are indeed desirable.
let me explain/demonstrate what *i* see as the proper use of this tool (without any significant changes): as an example, i'd like you to look at Pirc Defence, and specifically, look at the "Sample games" section. now look at the hebrew version of same article: although the article itself is much richer and more detailed on enwiki, IMO, the "sample games" on hewiki is vastly superior, because it uses this tool. i imagine this, and similar articles, improving by using the script, especially if we can make sure that users without the script or with JS disabled will see something similar to the way this section looks today. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

I am currently conducting a Good Article review on Bobby Fischer. This article is of top importance to this Wikiproject and is extremely well cited and has a bulk of references that are 404ed or have been modified since implementation that could quickly be broken at a later date. I have some understanding of the subject, but in order to do a proper in-depth review, this will take both a long time and additional eyes because I have numerous questions about the content that I am preparing to bring up. I'd hate to have this article, nominated months ago, be failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Castling article

I screwed up the spacing on Castling#Notable_examples. Can someone please fix it? Thanks. Krakatoa (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for any confusion. (I put diags above their sec heads to conserve vertical space each time. If WP:CHESS doesn't like that, I'll stop doing it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tom Braunlich

Does anyone know if Draft:Tom Braunlich the Pente champion and collectible card game designer is also a chess master? I found several hits on HighBeam if we can connect these activities to the same person. If we can add more sources to the article, I did a requested move on the talk page to get it restored back to article space. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems he is quite a strong player, peak FIDE rating was 2219 which is Candidate Master strength. FIDE site has been down for a couple of days but I found his rating history here. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I find that his entry on BoardGameGeek connects all these aspects under one person, so I suspect all of those HighBeam hits may be valid for him. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After a successful Requested Move, Tom Braunlich is an article once more. :) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_28&oldid=1074879576"