Category talk:Chess theoreticians

Chess Category‑class

	Chess portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Biography Category‑class

	Biography portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Category	This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why?[edit]

Why does this category exist? Aren't nearly all grandmasters also chess theoreticians? And most importantly, what criteria are used to put people in this category? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all grandmasters are theoreticians. Theoreticians are the players, who created a new opening or opening variation. They are not so many actually. WO 10:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPETEHO (talk • contribs)

I actually signed (WO - is my sign). WO 10:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPETEHO (talk • contribs)

Really? Where does that definition come from? e.g. I would argue that Anand is much more of a theoretician than Lasker ever was, but Lasker happens to have an opening named after him. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me (as well as to you) it is difficult to prove the position, but it is nevertheless standard. Let's remain at the our subjective opinions. Regards. WO 05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPETEHO (talk • contribs)

But Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable Sources. You will need a reliable source for your definition of "Chess theoretician". Peter Ballard (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No source has been supplied. I still think this category is rather arbitrary. I intend to list it for deletion shortly. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not?[edit]

I do not understand you. If there is chess theory, then there are chess theoreticians. If there are chess theoreticians, then why can not exist the list of chess theoreticians. You can put under question someones presence on the list, but you can not put question on the fact, that there are chess theoreticians. If you do not know who decerve to be called "chess theoretician", then leave it, please, to people who understand it. All the best and exuse me for poor English - i am Russian. WO 08:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPETEHO (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia relies on WP:Reliable Sources. We will need a reliable sources to define who is a chess theoretician and who is not. My problem is that all leading chess players are chess theoreticians by some definition or another. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at "chess theory" article in wikipedia. Those who write about chess theory, who are often but not necessarily also eminent players, are referred to as "theorists" or "theoreticians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEPETEHO (talk • contribs) 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:CHESS[edit]

I've opened discussion over whether this category should be deleted at WT:CHESS#Category:Chess theoreticians. Basically I agree with all of Peter Ballards points and have a few more concerns as well. Quale (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]