Talk:Mittens (chess)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor addition recommended: Mittens icon[edit]

Sorry guys, I'm not familiar with how to post comments on Wikipedia; however, I think a nice addition would be inserting the chess.com Mittens icon besides the article. I'm not sure what information should go below it, but I thought that could be nice. Great article guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.23.189 (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be a good idea to do this, unfortunately the image of mittens could only be added if we can obtain the permission to use it from chess.com. Adding it without permission would be a copyright violation. It might be something to look at in the future though. Thanks for the appreciation for us, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) 174.100.23.189 (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a case of fair-use could be made for the icon. I will try uploading one Carpimaps talk to me! 14:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have little understanding of fair use so that's why I didn't suggest it. If you want to, I would reccomend trying the way back machine, as that should have an icon somewhere during January 2023. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ source[edit]

Hi @Schminnte, I came across this in-depth WSJ article yesterday about Mittens. If you do not have access you can request a copy from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. [1] S0091 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robinson, Andrew Beaton and Joshua. "The Chess World's New Villain: A Cat Named Mittens". WSJ. Retrieved 2023-01-19.

S0091 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks a lot @S0091: I'll need to ask at the resource exchange though. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any other sources like this it would be much appreciated. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article! I hope you will write more articles. Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Schminnte (talk). Self-nominated at 16:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mittens (chess engine), so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

@SyntheticSystems: QPQ is done. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see a need for the substack content. Seems like a blog. starship.paint (exalt) 14:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: it is a blog, but it is by Joe Posnanski, a respected journalist. The blog has won a journalism award. If this isn't fine I'll remove it. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte: - I would prefer a chess-related expert, but given your explanation I won't oppose this. starship.paint (exalt) 06:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by comment I'm pretty sure that the chess engine Mittens drawn against Hikaru Nakamura? is not grammatically correct. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: fixed. I think I was a bit too tired when I nominated this! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Schminnte: Article is new enough, long enough, neutral and contains no close paraphrase that I could detect. QPQ done. ALT0 is eye-catching but misleading (not a real cat, and now it's dead). Would be more accurate to call it artificial cat unless we're going for an April 1 hook. ALT1 isn't very interesting to a generalist audience who don't know their chess grandmasters. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DigitalIceAge: To solve those issues (unless an April fools hook is wanted),

How are those? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schminnte: Had to change one word in ALT0a to reflect its defunct status. I suppose if you want to run ALT0 on April Fools' Day (changing is to was) it would attract more views through. Otherwise I'd approve ALT0a. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DigitalIceAge: I'll leave it up to you. I already have a April fools hook pending at Template:Did you know nominations/Loophonium, so that might influence your decision. Thanks for the review, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Since WP:DYKAPRIL isn't booked at the moment, I'll approve ALT0 for April 1. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Hello,

It seems as if most of the information is rewritten from the main Wall Street Journal. But to be as boring as possible about fact checking:

1. "Whalen stated that the design team believed it would be “way more demoralizing and funny” for the engine to play this way."

That's a quote from me in the article.

2. "these lines include quotes from Robert Oppenheimer, Vincent van Gogh, Thanos"

Mittens does not quote Thanos. There are other instances of people in books using similar phrases and it is explicitly a reference to something else.

3. "Mittens' strategy is to slowly gain an advantage over its opponent, a tactic likened to the playing style of Anatoly Karpov."

That is not accurate. The quote from the article itself was, "Mittens grinded down opponents through painstaking positional battles, similar to the tactics Russian grandmaster Anatoly Karpov used to become world champion."

4. "The engine is not perfect: according to Hikaru Nakamura, Mittens sometimes misses the best move (or winning positions) in some situations."

It is not really possible for any engine to be perfect, but the top ones are already overwhelmingly good to the point that a person has no reasonable chance against them.

Feel free to email me if you have any follow-ups.

Best, Sean Beckersean (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beckersean: could you please clarify: 2. What mittens is actually quoting, 3. I'll change the line to better reflect that, 4. I don't see the problem with that statement, the fact that the engine missed a winning move is important, I'll delete the first part though. Also, the draft was created even before the WSJ source came out, so your point doesn't really stand. Thanks for reaching out. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Top" players[edit]

Rosen and Rozman are both International Masters, not top players, so it's not unexpected that they struggled against Mittens. Plus Rozman has retired from competitive chess altogether. 69.165.204.210 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording slightly. Thanks for spotting that. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mittens (chess engine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Passed MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schminnte, happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte, I've finished my review. Not too many comments here, this is definitely close to being ready for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm active just now so I'll look over these points in the coming hours. Thanks again for the review! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk:I think I've addressed your points. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schminnte: This is good for GA. See the citation wikilinking problem below. I'll pass it, but make sure to refer to that in the future. Great job on the article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is free of typos and understandable. Nicely done!
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. In the lead, I think This popularity was one of the reasons... should be merged with the previous sentence. Possibly, The engine became a viral sensation in the chess community due to exposure through content made by chess streamers and a social media marketing campaign, later contributing to record levels of traffic to the website on Chess.com, causing database scalability issues.

Other than that, the prose is understandable and free of typos. Well done!

 Done I pretty much copied you there, nice wording. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. The following refs need to have their publishers wikilinked:
  • Ref 7 (CNN Business)
  • Ref 8 (WSJ)
  • Ref 12 (Dot Esports)

Additionally, a "Secondary sources" header should be added under "References". Then, switch the placement of the two, so primaries are first followed by secondary.

 Not done I deliberately did not like those sources as they are already linked in prose: I thought this would be considered OVERLINKING. Please correct me if wrong. Source headers is  Done. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just bit down from that MOS page is MOS:DUPLINK, which states that Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). All sources are from reliable news websites (like CNN Business) or blogs (like JoeBlogs). I'll note that primary sources from chess.com are used, but I consider their usage appropriate, and they are distinguished in the "References" section.
2c. it contains no original research. Article is well-cited; no OR visible. Chess.com is cited on a statement about how Mittens scored in a tournament, so it's usage is appropriate.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. I will note that it shows a high score for the Dot Esports article, but that's because of a blockquote in the article, so it's all good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addresses the release, design, rating, and impact; all good.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Article stays focused on the topic.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No bias visible
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No recent edit wars
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Though, I have a concern about the chess.com logo at the top of the article. It seems that the image was uploaded to Commons by a now deleted user. The article for chess.com has the same image, just as an SVG instead of a PNG. The issue is that the SVG is licensed under fair use because it's a copyrighted logo. This leads me to believe that the PNG in Mittens (chess engine) is illegally licensed under CC. I've nominated it for deletion accordingly, so I suggest you either remove it or swap it with something else.
 Done replaced with navbox for chess programming. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images of Karpov and Nakamura are properly licensed under CC.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Images of Karpov and Nakamura are appropriate and captioned
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not an "engine"[edit]

Mittens was not an engine. It was just one of many "bots" that users of the chess.com app could play against. The author of this article seems to not know the difference between an engine and a bot. 2601:281:D880:7880:2DB0:6438:75F7:F590 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mittens_(chess)&oldid=1208596670"