Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 38

German wikipedia has destroyed the myth that "vertical castling" was ever legal

I investigated this after recent edits by User:Edderiofer, it took me to a couple of reddit discussions and more importantly to this discussion on German wikipedia, which actually has an article on "Pam-Krabbé castling". They've come to the conclusion that such castling has never been legal according to FIDE laws. It was used by the French composer Seret as an April Fool's joke, and the theme was later picked up by Pam and Krabbé. See also Chess life May 1976, where Krabbé as good as admits that this form of castling has never been legal. Why he basically lied about its alleged legality in Chess Curiosities is a mystery. The idea had actually been published by the Danish problemist Staugaard in 1907, and this problem was rediscovered in 2013. Seret may have been aware of Staugaard, or may have discovered it independently. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As was pointed out in the German discussion, the hoax is itself notable, so we can't just erase it. User:Edderiofer refers to it as a "myth", but perhaps "hoax" would be a better word. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right that I probably should have used the word "hoax", but I wasn't quite sure what to cite to support that claim; using the word "myth" was much easier to back up with a citation of the actual FIDE Laws from 1930. One additional point of interest is that Staugaard's problem predates the FIDE Laws; do we have any archives of laws in use prior to FIDE and did those laws allow for "vertical castling"? Edderiofer (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Two things, firstly I'm unhappy about a primary source being used as the only reference - this smacks of original research. Where is there a secondary source saying this loophole never existed? Secondly, is it true the FIDE laws were clarified in 1972 or not? That claim still appears in the Castling article as a footnote. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The story is given here. Yes it's possible that in the original French version of the laws from 1930 there was no loophole, but is it possible that there was also a version in English at some point that gave the definition as as "a move of the king and either rook of the same colour, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed"? The whole thing was only ever meant as a joke anyway, one possible interpretation of an ambiguity - I don't see a vertical castling "myth" that needs to be "busted." Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Every country, every club even, had its own set of rules prior to FIDE. It's possible that in some sets of rules, in some languages, vertical castling was technically legal due to a loophole. But never under FIDE rules. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone with access to July 2001 edition of British Chess Magazine

Hi all. Over at WP:MILHIST we've been cleaning up any references to a website called theaerodrome.com which was recently determined as being generally unreliable. How does this relate to chess, you might ask? Well, the FA-class article George H. D. Gossip has an indirect reference to that website via this endnote. The referenced section also has another reference to British Chess Magazine (Whyld, Ken (July 2001). "Mr Darcy meets Biggles". British Chess Magazine. p. 391.) and I was hoping someone here could check whether that source would allow us to remove endnote #12. Anyone got old numbers of that magazine laying around they would be willing to check? -Ljleppan (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

$100 Theme

Hi, I saw that this was a requested article. I've started a draft here, and will work on it soon.

I have access to some non-officially-reproduced PDF scans of various old chess magazine issues that discuss the $100 Theme; I don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on citing these.

On an unrelated side note, we should eventually edit The Emperor of Ocean Park, as the book references the $100 Theme specifically (not merely the Excelsior theme), to say so. Edderiofer (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Chess problem themes are a bit esoteric for most of us, most chess players couldn't even tell you waht a Novotny interference is since it is so rare in practical play, and other themes are even rarer. Most chess problem themes probably don't qualify for separate articles, but could be included in Glossary of chess problems. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Tournament categories

The FIDE title regulations no longer mention tournament categories. The 2010 regulations, which we cite in Elo rating system, mentioned them, but indicated they were deprecated: "Category was used for title results earlier. Now it is used only to describe the overall strength of a round-robin tournament." The 2014, 2017, and 2022 regulations, which can still be found at the FIDE website, don't mention categories at all.

I plan to delete the sections of Elo rating system and Chess tournament that talk about FIDE tournament categories. I'm just posting this notice a little bit in advance so that anyone can think of other articles that might be affected, or anyone can comment or object. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would we delete this information outright? Why not keep it for historical reference, explaining what you just said here? Cobblet (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking around some more, I didn't find any mention of categories in Chess title or FIDE titles, but I found discussion of categories in Grandmaster (chess), in the description of GM requirements in the 1965 and 1970 regulations. It doesn't explicitly say that categories have been dropped, but that's implied, because the description of current requirements doesn't mention them. (Perhaps I should add some text to clarify that.)

Perhaps the right thing to do is to remove the explicit descriptions of categories from Elo rating system and Chess tournament, but replace them with cross-references to Grandmaster (chess). I agree that this history is worth preserving, but I think it would improve things to have it in only one place. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This concept, while based on Elo ratings, is rather tangential to the Elo rating system. My suggestion would be to delete the paragraph from that article. I'd also suggest keeping and updating the same paragraph in the chess tournament article, because that is where people will most likely try to look up the concept. If you'd like to redirect the reader to the entry in the chess glossary instead, which also needs to be updated, that could work too. The presentation of the concept in the GM article is different, as there the discussion focuses on its relationship to historical norm requirements. I'd leave that as is. Cobblet (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Pawn Structure needs inline cites

The Pawn structure article is badly in need of inline cites (as of this note, the fairly long, "high-importance" rated article contains a single one), so I went ahead and tagged it. I wouldn't like to drive-by tag, but the article seems to be well-developed in terms of its listed (uncited) sources, which I don't have before me. I also don't think that listing basic info on the topic via other sources would be too helpful in this well-developed article's case, so I mention it here to brainstorm myself, and suggest the work to others. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of inline citations is a problem with this article.

The article uses vocabulary that I had not seen before to describe various pawn structures. When I saw "Boleslavsky Hole", I guessed that it was named for the Boleslavsky variation of the Sicilian defense, in which that formation can arise. But I do not know the origin of "Rauzer formation". Perhaps it is because I read chess instruction books many years ago, and they are using different vocabulary now. If that's my problem, then I would be happy if a source were given for the name given to each type of position. Or perhaps some Wikipedia editor made up this vocabulary. That would be bad; we should not be making up names for types of pawn structure. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps some bold revamping is in order. The current article does make a nice structural development of basic types (about 30 or so), but this is the whole problem (according to whom). And each sub-section tends to be in bullet-format. I could maybe work up an early "overview" section but that's about all, nothing more substantive or addressing existing content. MinnesotanUser (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Harassment of women in chess?

Hi WikiProject,

I'm posting this on behalf of a user who flagged this story on Discord just now and seemed reluctant to create an account. It concerns an unpleasant story about harassing mail sent to women in chess. I have not evaluated these sources, and some are in Russian, which I do not speak, but it sounds like something we may want to include in e.g. women in chess. For this and other reasons a section on harassment (or perhaps an expansion of the sexism section) seems merited, but more research is needed. Dropping here in case someone else might be interested: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Latvian IM gained his title in suspicious circumstances. Certainly he wouldn't be notable enough to get an article under normal circumstances. It's a sordid story and I'm not sure if I really want to add it to wikipedia unless it gets wider publicity outside of Russian language publications. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD for individual TCEC seasons

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCEC_Season_21. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 in chess

The page 2022 in chess is a disaster. It's all mixed up, the two tours (GCT and CCT) should have their own box (not to mention that the names reported now are wrong). "FIDE events" doesn't make much sense, they have a new website for the world championship cycle, maybe we can highlight those events in the same way. Gibraltar wasn't open (and not relevant either). The World Team Championship is missing. Take care. --95.232.2.137 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I don't pay much attention to the "year in chess" articles, their format is very inconsistent and no standard has really evolved. Not even sure wikipedia really needs them. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This template from German wikipedia is pretty cool

It gets a player's rating history from wikidata, which in turn gets its data from FIDE and Olimpbase. Worth copying for English wikipedia? Template:Elo-Diagramm MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, we already have it at Template:Elo chart. Fun example is Alexandru Crisan.

Elo development

MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

First sentence of "Castling" article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Castling#Wording_Part_2

Need help settling a dispute. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion article

Need help settling a dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Promotion_(chess)#Wording ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Scholar's mate" and "Fool's mate" articles

(This isn't a third feud.)

Hello, everyone. I present to you a question: do we move Scholar's mate and Fool's mate (lowercase m) to Scholar's Mate and Fool's Mate (uppercase M)? Here are my main points for doing this:

1. Most sources seem to use an uppercase M; thus, the page move would conform the spelling to general usage.
2. The two aforementioned mates are technically openings, and opening names are always capitalized.
3. Both of these articles use uppercase all the way through anyway; the titles are the only outliers.

Thanks for your consideration! ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GAMECAPS seems to agree that chess openings should be capitalized. (Although of course they are not technically openings.) I would boldly move the pages, if reverted, start a WP:RM. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent, but I note that one of my most respected sources, Hooper & Whyld's The Oxford Companion to Chess, uses lower case for both words in its entries for "fool's mate" and "scholar's mate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I too would think of these as checkmate patterns first and foremost, not openings. (I once saw an actual tournament game go 1.e4 g6 2.d4 f5 3.ef gf 4.Qh5#. That's a fool's mate, not a Reversed Fool's Mate Deferred.) And every entry in Checkmate pattern uses lower case for "mate". Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? I was under the impression that Fool's Mate is very specifically a sequence in the opening in which White, on their first two moves, advances their f- and g-pawns, whereupon Black, on their second move, plays Qh4 and delivers mate. This is in accordance with every definition of the term I've ever heard—every definition, that is, until yours. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

An opening is the beginning of a chess game, not the whole game. Fool's Mate begins with 1.f3, Barnes Opening. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Question

Should Two Knights Defense, Traxler Counterattack be moved to just Traxler Counterattack, like Two Knights Defense, Fried Liver Attack was moved to just Fried Liver Attack? 9ninety (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Changes in the air

Looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-03-27/Discussion_report#Major changes to WP:NSPORT, I thought perhaps the chess project should be paying attention, if we aren't already. Yeah, chess is not a sport; but chess players think it is. Proposal 5 particularly caught my attention. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't think chess is a sport either: we once asked to add the WP:NCHESS guidelines to NSPORT but were rebuffed. So Proposal 5 may not be applicable to chess biographies, but this may be a moot point since GNG still applies to chess biographies regardless of NCHESS or NSPORT. It surprises me that Proposal 1 did not achieve consensus. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Got a beef with one of the participants of those RfC's, he snow closes things before the discussion has run its course. Only uninvolved editors should ever do that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I noted those changes to NSPORT. Causing a lot of issues in association football, etc. I'd like a clarification on FIDE Master. Does this confer eligibility in NCHESS? --Whiteguru (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

NCHESS mentions Grandmaster, but not the two "lesser" titles, International Master and FIDE Master. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Checkmate with three knights

It seems to me that three knights can force checkmate without using their king, but I don't have a reference (and I have a lot of references). This is mentioned in Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame. Does anyone have a reference for this? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Both Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame are citing Fine pp. 5-6, where it's talking about the three knights endgame, and the example definitely involves the king helping the three knights. "... without using their king" sounds like an unusual stipulation, why would anyone care whether or not the king helped out? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I've tried it about five times against the computer, K & 3N vs. K, but not using my king, and always forced checkmate with just the knights. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Article on Jaime Santos Latasa urgently needs work

Jaime Santos Latasa is rapidly rising in the world ranking. I created a stub about him in March when he entered the Top 100 as No. 96. He subsequently improved to No. 81 in April and now No. 66 in May. The article is still just the stub that I created, in stark contrast to articles about other players of similar rank. I linked the stub to the articles in Catalan and Spanish that have more info on him – perhaps someone could use one of those to expand the article? Who knows where he'll be in the ranking in June... Joriki (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed additions to Four-player chess

 You are invited to join the discussion at sandbox "Four-player chess" with proposed additions. Bedfordres (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

For reference, this is related to WP:THQ#Look at my sandbox?. The OP wants to make some major changes to Four-player chess and has worked up a new version for the article in User:Bedfordres/sandbox. Perhaps some of the members of WP:CHESS can help him sort through this and assess the sanbox content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes. Bedfordres (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

minor adjustments to the infobox. I plan to overhall the start section, add a definition section, overhall the history section, overhall the rules section, add a strategy section, and build upon the further reading/links section. For what I plan to add (mostly, not everything is different) to my sandbox, please see that. It should be noted that I'm concerned about: Too much information to impare clarity. Secondly, I don't think the sourcing is quite right, but I believe that it is up to wikipedia standards at least. anyways — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedfordres (talk • contribs) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Gukesh D

Shouldn't the title be "D Gukesh"? That's the proper way to write his name and is also use by most sources [11][12]. 9ninety (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

News sources seem to be split between "D Gukesh" and "Gukesh D". FIDE's rating card lists him as "Gukesh D" with no comma (almost every other card has a comma separator in the name). On Twitter, he goes by "Gukesh D" but his handle is "@DGukesh". You say "D Gukesh" is the "proper" way to write his name... I'm not seeing that, and see no reason for a move. Le Marteau (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

His name is "Dommaraju Gukesh" so the initial "D" comes first. And FIDE also incorrectly lists Erigaisi Arjun and Praggnanandhaa R without the comma. Chessgames lists his name correctly as "D Gukesh". 9ninety (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

And two other chess sites refer to him as "Gukesh D". As I said, sources seem split, and you only citing ones which support your assertion and ignoring the others helps nothing. I'd need to see how he refers to himself, not what his given name was. And on Twitter, it looks like he refers to himself as "Gukesh D". Le Marteau (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should be taking place on the Gukesh D talk page, but I would say his Twitter profile is a strong arguments against a move. From Googling news sources there seems to be quite an even split, so I don't agree that "most sources" use D Gukesh.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCHESS being discussed at Village Pump

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Is_WP:NCHESS_a_notability_policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Think I helped develop it, it was never meant to be a formal wikipedia policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Need help finding a suitable chess category for Ibn Ammar

This is not the biggest problem, but I need help finding suitable chess categories for Muhammad ibn Ammar. The page is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles, but it is not in our category tree under Category:Chess. Any ideas? We could create new categories for Islamic or Moorish chess players (possibly under Category:Chess players by ethnicity, or we could create an 11th-century chess players category. Quale (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There are similar issues with Al-Adli and Abu Bakr bin Yahya al-Suli. How would others feel about creating separate categories for shatranj and shatranj players? Cobblet (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

We already have categories for 20th century chess players, and 19th century chess players. It seems natural to create one for 11th century players, and so what if there are no examples for intervening centuries. Le Marteau (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The two ideas are not exclusive, so we could do both. I really like Cobblet's suggestion—I think a category for shatranj players is an excellent solution. When I asked for ideas I hoped someone would suggest something smart like that that I hadn't considered. It could be a subcategory of Category:Chess players to make it discoverable in the chess category tree. Quale (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Shatranj is not a very familiar name. I wonder if something like medieval chess players would have a wider audience. Which in turn suggests, chess players of the Renaissance. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I hesitate to call shatranj players "chess players", even though I understand the games are historically related, and I don't mind them being a subcategory of chess players. Cobblet (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Although opinion wasn't unanimous, I like Cobblet's idea of Category:Shatranj players so I went ahead and created it as a subcategory of Category:Chess players. If consensus is that this isn't the best then we can undo it. I didn't create a category for shatranj itself, but I am not opposed to it. Quale (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CHESSENGINE should be amended

This section currently says:

Analysis by a chess engine is original research and cannot be used on Wikipedia. This includes engine analysis generated by posting games or positions on sites such as lichess.org. However, if a reliable source refers to engine analysis, this can be used.

I think this is not good because engines are stronger than humans. There are occasional positions which GMs analyze better than engines, but they are rare (generally they involve fortresses). It's also occasionally possible that a GM will spot a move that engines miss. Nonetheless, engines are more reliable than GMs. If a GM says X move is good and the engine points out a refutation, the GM is wrong and the engine is right. We could for example look back at old books written by world champions half a century ago analyzing some famous game, and the book would be a "reliable source", but engines are almost certain to point out tons of flaws or missed lines, and the engine would be right. I don't think there are many/any GMs that seriously dispute this.

I think this section should be amended to:

• You (the author/editor of the article) can cite engine analysis to, e.g., show why a position is winning or losing.
• You still need to cite a traditional "reliable source" if involving human interpretation. For example, you cannot write X move leads to a position that is easy to play, because "easy to play" is not measured by the engine evaluation.
• The same goes for "...and White is better because they [have more space, the bishop pair, the safer king, etc.]" because those aren't given by the engine evaluation. In the past one could cite the static evaluation on the final leaf node, but these days with all the top engines using NN eval this is also impractical.

Caveat: the engine evaluation depends on the engine & the depth, so if that matters (e.g. for the claim "X move is Y centipawns better than Z") then these should be given. It's still not ideal since you also want the version used, the hardware used, the number of threads, etc., but these are the biggest factors.

Banedon (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, because one of the reasons sources are required is not just to ensure something is true, but to ensure mention is warranted, see WP:WEIGHT. Just because anyone with an engine can demonstrate that "... White is better because they [have more space, the bishop pair, the safer king, etc.]", so what? If no reliable source is talking about the position at that point, we should not either. Le Marteau (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

That does not seem to be what Banedon is talking about, given that the OP has "those aren't given by the engine evaluation". I think what is being proposed is that: you still can't cite the engine to say why White is better, because that's human interpretation, but you can cite it to say that White is better. So you could say "Black is winning with 35...g5" or something like that, but you couldn't say "Black is better because this move wins the bishop pair for no compensation" unless an RS already says that. Please correct me if I've misunderstood this, but it does seem at least more reasonable. Double sharp (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What Double sharp said. You can't demonstrate with an engine that "White is better because they [have more space, the bishop pair, the safer king, etc.]" unless you are running the static evaluation on the leaf node of the search, which doesn't apply to modern engines anyway since they're all NN or NNUE based (if you don't know what this means - it's quite technical - I can elaborate). Banedon (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The proposal goes directly against wikipedia's policy, which calls for WP:RS and prohibits WP:OR. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

From the test of the proposal: engines are more reliable than GMs. Banedon (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

GMs with engines are still more reliable than engines themselves. In addition to being difficult to verify (see your own caveat), engine analysis violates several aspects of WP:NOT: Wikipedia does not predict the future, it does not publish original thought, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of data. We look to RSs not only for the truth of their contents but also to determine what does or does not provide encyclopedic value.

Obviously truth still matters. If an RS gives analysis that anyone with an engine can see is wrong, that analysis should not be cited. But that does not mean that the engine analysis can be cited either, unless it is published in an RS. WP:V demands that Wikipedia's content be determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Cobblet (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If an RS gives analysis that anyone with an engine can see is wrong, that analysis should not be cited You don't see any issue with using an allegedly unreliable source as justification to not use analysis from an allegedly reliable source? Banedon (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. Any time Wikipedia editors make a decision on what to put or not put in an article, they are using editorial judgment – their own editorial judgment. They are allowed to do that, even though they themselves are not a reliable source. But the fact remains we have strict policies on what kinds of sources we are allowed to cite in our articles. You should not write something on Wikipedia that is wrong. But you must not write something on Wikipedia that cannot be attributed to a reliable, published source. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Concrete example: say we create a new article for Ivanchuk-Yusupov 1991. This is a famous and beautiful game, widely-annotated. One of the annotators is GM Yasser Seirawan, who featured the game in Winning Chess Brilliancies. At one point GM Seirawan writes "does White have a defense? I can't find one." Well he was wrong, because a defense exists, as anyone can discover for themselves by checking with Stockfish. Do you treat GM Seirawan as a reliable source now? If not, what do you write? Banedon (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Seirawan wasn't wrong at all. He didn't claim that no defence exists, just that he couldn't find one. You can cite Seirawan for his claim that he could not find a defence. You should check other RSs to see if somebody did find a defence. If no RS has published a defence, it cannot be provided on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Then pick a different example, of which I am sure there are many. Engines have been poking holes in human analysis of games ever since they got to master strength. Banedon (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely true. But this does not change the fact that publishing your own computer analysis on Wikipedia is still a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

How is it "your own computer analysis"? It's Stockfish's (or whichever engine one is using) analysis. Banedon (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not Stockfish or some other engine that chose to analyze a certain position; that chose the hardware the analysis was run on; that chose to end the analysis where the analysis was ended; that chose to import that analysis into Wikipedia; that chose how that analysis would be presented. And even if it were somehow Stockfish that did all those things, it would still be OR – not your OR, but Stockfish's OR. Cobblet (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clear where we disagree - I consider the analysis Stockfish's not mine, and I consider Stockfish a reliable source. I also don't see any chance that we will agree, so /shrug. Banedon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There's another very relevant wikipedia policy, WP:CONSENSUS, which appears not to be on your side. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• It is also a mistake to treat "centipawn" evaluations (I hate that term, can you tell?) as if they are some kind of objective truth. They are not, they depend on several factors including the engine being used, the hardware, the search depth etc. A grandmaster may well come to the conclusion that move A is better than move B in full knowledge that move B has a higher engine evaluation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Do you have any evidence for this claim? Because I'm fairly confident the reverse is true. A GM may well play move A instead of B even though B has higher engine evaluation, but only because they are not playing against an engine. B is, generally speaking, the objectively better move. Banedon (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • B is only the objectively better move if it wins but A draws, or if B draws but A loses. Otherwise A and B are of objectively equal value. Which brings us back to Max's point: short of forced mates, computer evaluations still reflect a degree of subjectivity – the subjectivity of the underlying algorithm. Cobblet (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Even further than what I said above, due to other random factors like hash tables, stacking, pruning etc you can run the same position with the same engine on the same hardware for the same amount of time to the same search depth and get a different result. Beyond forced mates and tablebase lookups, it's absolute nonsense to suggest that an evaluation figure is an objective truth. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

      If you run the engine with slightly different configurations on the same position and get different results at the same depth, then it indicates the moves are close to equal in strength, in which case there's nothing to write about. I do not understand you. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Not necessarily, because different engines will rank some close moves slightly differently. To quote Larry Kaufman in Kaufman’s New Repertoire for Black and White: When [Lc0 and Komodo MCTS] (plus other analysis and database stats when applicable) agree, I will very rarely argue. These engines play somewhere in the 3400 to 3600 Elo range, and only in special circumstances would I ignore them. But when they disagree, which is pretty often, I have to decide which one is right, and here my chess understanding and knowledge of chess engines both play a role. The default assumption is that Lc0 is right, but if Komodo MCTS strongly prefers a move that is only slightly below the best according to Lc0, or if Lc0 seems to be blind to some feature of the position or to a perpetual check, I’ll probably go with Komodo’s choice.
    • I have sympathy towards the proposal in cases where a bunch of engines agree that the move under consideration is the best by a pretty wide margin. Especially when it significantly changes the eval (not something like getting +8 instead of +5, but something like finding the only move that saves the draw that everybody apparently overlooked). Then I'd agree that yes, the engine eval is almost certainly accurate, and it is kind of a shame to not be able to include it. (Such a situation could quite plausibly occur in some unclear positions that arise from lines that are not encountered much these days.) But if the supposedly better move is ranked as close in eval to what GMs have recommended, and especially if different engines aren't sure which is better, then I don't see why we should break our usual practice. Double sharp (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
      • finding the only move... that everybody apparently overlooked If this occurs in an opening, what you're describing is a theoretical novelty. TNs are exactly the sort of thing we do not publish on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
        • I said it is kind of a shame to not be able to include it, not that we should include it. That is, I sympathise with the feeling, but don't think that we should act on it. Although yeah, I should've been clearer.
        • That said, we can certainly work around it via omission. If the engines show that some study we were using as an example is cooked, then we cannot say that it if nobody else did. But what we certainly can do is replace it with some other example that hopefully is not cooked. At most the engine analysis might appear as a brief comment on the talk page to explain to curious editors why the more famous example is not the one we are showing, so that well-intentioned people do not come to "correct" it, but it shouldn't face the reader. For what I was thinking of in my previous comment (e.g. old gambit lines like the Double Muzio that are very sharp, and nobody plays them anymore because everyone knows it's not sound), I suppose we could just get away with not giving much analysis on the grounds that such lines are WP:UNDUE in the first place. Double sharp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • That's true. A player may know what swindles and traps his opponent is likely to fall for, and attempt something a computer would never consider because it's not "optimal". One could say that going for the trap is the better move to make, human v human in some situations. Also, a computer may say a line 20 moves long is the way to go, but that may be only if you can play all the variations, and not get screwed if you can't. This worship on the altar of the centipawn becomes tiresome sometimes. Le Marteau (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

    You don't say, this disregard of centipawns becomes tiresome sometimes too. A player may know what swindles and traps his opponent is likely to fall for - I don't see how this is relevant to changing this policy because there's no scenario where someone will cite engines as the source of "knowing what swindles and traps the opponent is likely to fall for". Human vs. human games is its own niche in chess, and doesn't overlap with objective evaluations. a computer may say a line 20 moves long is the way to go, but that may be only if you can play all the variations, and not get screwed if you can't - this also doesn't change the objective evaluation. Banedon (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

    Human vs. human games is its own niche in chess, Human v Human IS chess. Adding computers is a novelty... like adding a guy on a motorcycle to a foot race. Say someone invents a golf playing machine, and by it's "objective evaluation" it says the best golf shot to take on Hole No. 1 at Augusta National Golf Course is to drive the ball directly into the hole for a hole in one. Well, that's swell, except no human can do that, which makes what that machine is doing not "golf" (a sport played by humans) by definition, and we'd be ridiculous to say the "objectively" best way to play Hole No. 1 at Augusta National is not to lay it up at the dog leg, but to make a hole in one. I've made my point, and that'll have to do. I'm done here. Le Marteau (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No, chess is a two-player board game played on an 8x8 board. Human vs. human is one form of chess, just like blitz and classical are different forms of chess. I am also done, because I don't think we will agree. Banedon (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• While your commitment towards objective accuracy is commendable, it doesn't align with Wikipedia's policies, which state that claims must be verifiable from reliable sources, and that original research is not considered a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, nor is it a publisher of original thought, so while engine analysis could be objectively more "correct" than GM analysis, unless it is supported by a secondary source it does not belong on Wikipedia. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible enhancement to Infobox chess player to include native_name

I noticed that the {{Infobox person}} template has a native_name parameter. I think it would be a good addition to {{Infobox chess player}} if someone cares to add it. Quale (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Article on Shant Sargsyan needs work

Shant Sargsyan just entered the FIDE top 100, and the article on him consists of only four short sentences. Some more information is available on Wikipedia in other languages, especially in Armenian. Joriki (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:En passant

Seeking outside input for a dispute at Talk:En passant. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Carlsen and Smyslov

I wrote the following comment on Bruce leverett's discussion page: "I'm writing to you with regards to the reversion you made of my edit to Magnus Carlsen's page, specifically the inclusion of Smyslov in the list of comparisons to former WCs. I'm not necessarily opposed to this inclusion, but I'd like if you could expand on precisely what you think the criteria for players in this section should be. As I stated in my edit summary, if we were to include all comparisons made by people who meet WP's standards of notability, we would need to list every world champion. And while Kasparov is one of the greatest players of all time, he is far from being the end-all in these discussions, so drawing the line precisely there seems kind of arbitrary."

He responded: "I do not have a useful set of criteria at my fingertips. I reverted your edit because your reason given was that you hadn't seen the comparison to Smyslov; but having restored the status quo, I do not know why one set of comparisons is quoted and not others. These appear in several biography articles of chess players. If you want to start a discussion of this, perhaps the best place would be in WT:CHESS."

I am now continuing the discussion here. To clarify, my point was not that such a comparison had never been made, but just that it was made infrequently enough such that I had never seen it, and thus that including Smyslov sets a precedent that we should in fact including nearly all or all previous WCs. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A little bit of additional context. The sentence in the introductory paragraphs of Magnus Carlsen, saying that Carlsen had been compared to certain grandmasters including Smyslov, was an echo of a sentence in the "Playing style" section, which quoted an interview with Kasparov. When editor 216.164.249.213 deleted that sentence because he hadn't seen the comparison with Smyslov, I reverted his deletion because the comparison was there and it was properly sourced by Wikipedia standards.

Having done that, however, I don't claim that a sentence like "His positional mastery and endgame prowess have drawn comparisons to former world champions Anatoly Karpov, Bobby Fischer, José Raúl Capablanca and Vasily Smyslov" is necessarily a valuable contribution to the introductory paragraphs, or even the interior paragraphs, of an article about Carlsen. It more or less routinely happens that the strongest players of today are compared with the strongest players of yesteryear. Do we, or should we, have criteria to decide whether such a comparison is worth including in a player's Wikipedia biography? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Echoing these sentiments although I am not a strong enough player to know for sure whether the comparisons merit inclusion. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce's remarks. World Champions are inevitably compared to other champions, and we should consider that not all of those comparisons are interesting. I suspect most readers at Magnus Carlsen do not know who Smyslov was, so including the comparison in the article lead is probably not very helpful. I think there is sufficient reason to include the comparison in the article body, especially because it is sourced to Kasparov, a famous and recognized expert on the subject. The style comparison is fairly specific as well, "positional style similar to ..., and Smyslov, rather than the tactical style of ...", so I would keep it. Quale (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Help requested at Promotion (chess)

I'm finding this editor utterly exasperating. He's invented a non-existent rule that only moves that were physically played at the board are valid examples to illustrate a chess theme or tactic. All attempts to explain that the purpose of the examples is to illustrate a theme not to keep a historical record are met with "I Didn't Hear That" responses. Have reported him for edit warring after 4 reverts in an hour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI you're both over WP:3RR. I don't know who's right, but you'd both be blocked and/or the article protected if someone reported it (not that I'm going to, mind you). The what happened vs. what could've happened debate seems secondary to the basic wikipolicy of WP:WEIGHT. In general, I'd figure any example game would need to be referenced in some independent reliable source saying that it's a good example rather than a Wikipedian choosing a game and citing the game itself via chessgames.com. That said, it seems like some chess articles apply wikipolicy in ways that are surprising to me, so I might be out of touch on that issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm prepared to accept any boomerangs, but this editor is something else. He seems to think any analysis of any chess moves which weren't physically played at the board is "speculation", on a par with WP:CRYSTAL. Complete misapplication of wikipedia policy, but if it's accepted we might as well trash this entire wikiproject. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Olympiads and foreign language equivalent names

A series of recent edits to Chess Olympiad articles has added the local language equivalent event name, for example the Maltese name for the 24th Chess Olympiad. The relevant wikipedia guideline is MOS:LEADLANG and I would say its application turns on whether the subjects are considered closely associated with a foreign language. In my view, they are not. The locations are significant to the events and are closely associated, but the local languages are not linked to the events when reported in an English language source. Accordingly, I think these recent edits should be undone and the foreign language equivalent names should be removed. What do you think? Quale (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I should note, however, that the articles on the Olympic Games do seem to include the local language names, so this could be a strong argument against my view. Quale (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that hosting the Chess Olympiad is a pretty big deal for the hosting nation: at least, that's the sense I get from my friend who just participated in Chennai and previously in Tromsø. We can expect significant local coverage of the Olympiad in the local language. I think that's enough to meet the standard of being closely associated with a non-English language. I see nothing in MOS:LEADLANG that supports the idea of only giving local-language names when English-language sources also use those names. To use the example given in the guideline, I don't think it's common for English-language sources to refer to Chernivtsi Oblast as "Chernivetska oblast", but that doesn't stop us from giving the transliteration of the Ukrainian name. Besides, we're certainly not limited to consulting only English-language sources when writing English Wikipedia articles, so I don't see why we would apply similar restrictions to interpreting our guidelines. Cobblet (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

In most cases I don't see the point of using foreign local languages in articles in the English wikipedia if English sources never use them. Does that help an English reader of the article? If the reader wants the Russian names they can read the linked articles at ru.wikipedia.org, and if they can read Russian then I would recommend it. Whether something is a big deal locally doesn't seem to me to be of great concern. I wholeheartedly agree that biographies and geographical articles should include their local names, and en.wikipedia should try to counter geographical bias. I think that consideration of sources actually points in the opposite direction to your argument—Do we have any sources for the Maltese name of the 24th Chess Olympiad? If we made important use of Maltese sources in the article then I think that would be a good reason to include the Maltese name. On the other hand, if we decided that we should include the Russian name for a particular Olympiad because we used Russian sources in that article then I think it is better to be consistent and include the local names for all Olympiads rather than trying to adjudicate article by article. (The recent edits have added local names to most or all of the Olympiads, so we have that consistency now. Including the local names also makes the Chess Olympiad articles consistent with articles for the Olympic Games.) I do recognize some arguments in favor of including the local names. Since other editors think they should be included, that's another argument I accept in favor of including local names, even if I'm not completely on board with the reasons. This isn't important and I don't have strong feelings against including the local names, but I wanted to see what other editors thought. Thanks for taking the time to think about this and to share your view. Quale (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Does that help an English reader of the article? It certainly helps some of them. Just because someone is using the English-language Wikipedia does not mean that they do not understand or have no interest in other languages. With 800 million second-language speakers, English is the most widely spoken L2. Why should only bios and geography articles give local names, but not events? At least one important English-language source exists which uses the Maltese name of the 1980 Olympiad: see di Felice, Chess Competitions, 1971-2010: An Annotated International Bibliography, 3518.2. Cobblet (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Carlsen–Niemann controversy

At the risk of being accused of WP:CANVASSING, please consider whether we really need a separate article for this. It reeks of "internetism" to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

COVID changed chess: it's an esport now. This is the new normal. Cobblet (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's getting a lot of coverage... my issue is more about BLP. I wonder the extent to which WP:BLPCRIME should apply. I mean, there's no evidence at all that Niemann cheated but we even repeat the bit about an anal vibrating device. It's appalling that salacious bit -- which is based on absolutely nothing, as far as I've seen -- is getting any buy-in from the media. They kid cheated a while back - does that mean he can never win a legitimate game again? Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I see an AfD was opened and snow-kept since I last logged on. I don't think deletion was ever likely; it passes GNG easily.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I still say it's a storm in a teacup of only passing interest, mainly because of the prurient anal beads stuff. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

With all the independent coverage this controversy has received, I think it's notable enough for its own article. Regarding recentism, since it involves Carlsen the article will probably pass WP:10YEARS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Kasparov's touch-move controversy was widely covered too, just not on the internet, then in its infancy. If you dig through the newspapers from 1994 you could probably find enough material to in theory to justify an article. But seriously, the current situation where it is covered in the articles for Kasparov and Polgar is entirely satisfactory. There is a clear internetism bias on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Fischer random chess has an RFC

Fischer random chess has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 08:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

creating "career highlights and awards" section for chess player infobox

in the same way that professional athletes have a section dedicated to awards and significant wins (championships, olympic medals), i propose chess players should have a similar section. i would also propose the following criteria to be used in determining whether something makes it:

1. Winning or placing second in any of the tournaments in the Candidates cycle—in other words, qualifying for the Candidates.
2. Winning a national or world championship.
3. Winning an otherwise significant or popular tournament—Tata Steel, Sinquefield Cup, Tal Memorial.

i would love to hear thoughts on this. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Marshall Attack AfC Draft

Hello, I made a draft for Marshall Attack. Please add to it if you can! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marshall_Attack Burritok (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Brazilian Defense into Gunderam Defense

Hello! I have proposed that the article on the Brazilian Defense be merged into the article on the Gunderam Defense, since the two terms are widely used synonymously (including in the lead sections of the two articles). I would have considered this an uncontroversial merger and done it boldly, had it not been for the fact that a previous merger of the two was reverted by a user who seems to have closed his user account. For that reason I would like to request input into the discussion from peope more knowledgeable in the field than myself. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Quotefarm at Fischer random chess

The longstanding WP:QUOTEFARM in Fischer random chess has been contentious, but I think only because two editors tenaciously defend it while numerous editors have questioned it. You are welcome to share your thoughts at Talk:Fischer random chess#Quote farm once again, with feeling. Quale (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thx for posting here (because unwatched the article weeks ago). Respectfully, --IHTS (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything specifically banning quotation sections, but you could make the case that such lists are WP:TRIVIA. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Some additional discussion can be found in [[Talk:Fischer random chess#RFC on Views of grandmasters section]]. This was a small survey, in which only one respondent liked the quotefarm, but since that editor was and is the current principal editor of the file, inertia has prevailed.

I agree that WP:QUOTEFARM might not be specifically aimed at this kind of section, but the recommendation, "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles using quotations with little or no original prose" seems to strongly discourage it.

Earlier today an IP editor tried to restore some of the quotations, remedying the problem by adding some minimal annotation. But in addition to the inadequacy of the annotation, the restored material still isn't very encyclopedic. Why would I, the guy who typed "Fischer random chess" into the search box, want to know, and care about, what Aronian, or Hikaru, or whoever, said about the pros and cons of the game? This is just navel-gazing.

I note that, in their edit summaries, one of the editors -- the one who likes the quotefarm -- refers to some of the GM's quoted as "TRAITORS". Of course, he's being facetious, but anyway, I suspect that his motives for constructing this quotefarm are not altogether pure. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Re "navel gazing", the point of GM quotes wasn't any particular quote or any particular GM view, rather in totality a direct way to convey current status of a dynamic environment where summarization and reduction w/ be hard or even perhaps impossible to capture depth & breadth & nuance of same (as prev explained more than once elsewhere). Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

1st Chess Olympiad does not seem to be a stub anymore

The article "1st Chess Olympiad" is graded as a stub, but it seems like a Start-class article to me. Should it be re-graded? Helloheart (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Chess.com figures

What is the annual revenue of such a platform? I don't know the terms, and wouldn't be able to find and understand which source would be a right source and which would be a bad source. Turnover, profit... I think that would be interesting to know. If anyone knows how to find and document that... --Joachim~frwiki (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft (not mine) would benefit from review

Draft:Jack Mizzi caught my attention some time ago. I'm not the author although I made some minor improvements to it recently. I think it's in decent shape, way better than its earlier versions, but I don't feel comfortable approving it without knowledge of any special considerations that might make a young chess player notable. Because it was written by a family member of the subject, it initially came across as promotional, but I believe that tone has been neutralized. I'm still bothered by the heavy reliance on a single source, chess-results.com. If that isn't a concern, then maybe this is ready for moving into article space. Would someone from this project give it a look? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he'd pass WP:GNG. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, the draft does have a number of citations to independent sources. And WP:ANYBIO applies here, meaning that if the FIDE and World Amateur Chess Championship awards are significant, then the subject would merit inclusion. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The Maltese press are talking him up a lot, carelessly dropping the "p" word (prodigy), but the fact is a 2000 Elo rating at age 16 really isn't all that remarkable. India has literally hundreds of similarly rated teenagers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The citations for the World Amateur are footnotes 50, 51, and 52. Footnote 50 is a report on the tournament by the tournament organizer. As such, it doesn't even demonstrate notability for the tournament, let alone for an individual participant. Footnotes 51 and 52 are citations of chess-results.com. No citation to chess-results.com can demonstrate notability -- thousands of individuals appear in chess-results.com.

I concur with MaxBrowne2's skepticism of the Maltese press. In some cases, coverage of a chess player's achievements in the non-chess-playing press would demonstrate his notability, but this is his "home town" press, and their enthusiasm has to be discounted. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm more interested in whether the awards and achievements listed at the end qualify for WP:ANYBIO criterion #1. To someone like me who is unfamiliar with the field, it looks like the criterion is met. The last sentence of the lead section also seems like a strong claim of significance. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Candidate Master is the lowest title awarded by FIDE for over the board play, and is not considered to confer notability. FIDE's "arena" titles are so lightly regarded they don't even merit a mention in a chess biography, and are awarded only to low rated players who don't have an over the board title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to take note that (a) Malta has never produced a GM or an IM. (b)there are only 2FMs and less than 10CMs in Malta. So notability for Malta is certainly there, especially given he is the youngest ever to have obtained the title at 16 years old. Should we then delete the profile about the Prime Minister of Malta because the Prime Minister of India rules 1.4billion people and the one of Malta rules only 500,000 people? Also you are not correct about the online titles, they are awarded for online speed chess, bullet, blitz and rapid and are documented independently of the classic ratings. When we attend international tournaments people show a lot of respect for AIMs and AGMs because these are specialists in Blitz.

Jack is the #8 highest rated player in Malta in classical chess and is part of the Maltese national team. For Malta that is notable. For China and India, yes, the entire Malta team is irrelevant.

 ATM622 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to highlight the obvious, that he is the country's junior champion. Isn't that on it's own notable? ATM622 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCHESS is basically our ANYBIO standard. Mizzi does not meet it. Things would be different if he were to win the Maltese Chess Championship, not just the junior championship. Based on the sources given, I also doubt he would pass WP:GNG. Cobblet (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or other topic-specific notability guidelines. ATM622 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Which the article does not. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I did some research. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles, there were 1960 CM titles in the world. Comparing, India to Malta, India's population is 2800 times that of Malta. So if there was 1 CM in Malta, there should be 2800 in India, when in the world there are less than 2000. I cannot understand the logic of comparing Malta to India. ATM622 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE_titles#Arena_titles describes the arena titles. ATM622 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Although I do not particularly like reference 49, since they speak badly of my country, I want to highlight that chessbase is a very respected magazine and wrote an article about the European Small Nations Championships. This tournament was so important that a few days ago https://www.europechess.org/communique-of-the-ecu-board-meeting-cl-no-5-2022/ the European Chess Union gave a seat to ESNA in the world cup.

"B. European Championships

6. Remaining Qualification places for the 2021-2023 World Championship cycle were discussed and decided:

23 qualification places will be awarded at the 2023 European Chess Championship and 9 places at the 2023 European Women’s Chess Championship 1 qualification place was awarded to the Zone 1.10 (European Small Nations) tournament."

Jack will get the CM title as a result of his notable performance in this tournament (and not as is commonly assumed that he surpassed the 2200 mark). There is a special rule that a CM title can be obtained when a player obtains 4.5/9 in a FIDE Zonal tournament. Jack obtained 5.5/9 and this was the reason of the CM award. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B01DirectTitles2017 (table 1.4b gives more details). ATM622 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason why the local media started focusing on Jack Mizzi. ATM622 (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Table 1.4b refers to the rule as "Sub-Continental Individual " and in the column CM: "50% for at least 9 games". Sub-Continental is sometimes referred to as "zonal". ATM622 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Thanks to ECU for again allocating a FIDE World Cup spot to our Sub-Zonal 🇱🇮 . GM Lance Henderson de la Fuente 🇦🇩 will represent ESNA in South Korea 🇰🇷 next year. This also means that Jack Mizzi 🇲🇹 earns the Candidate Master (CM) title for his performance at the championship — congrats!"

This was the statement issued by MCF on Social Media. ATM622 (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the article highlighting that the World Amateur tournament was inaugurated by the FIDE President. ATM622 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Finally I cannot understand the irony about the p-word. Wikipedia says this about chess prodigies : "Their prodigious talent will often enable them to defeat experienced adult players and even titled chess masters. ". Their are multiple references in the article where defeats of IMs and FMs were achieved. ATM622 (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above summaries of the situation by Cobblet. But I am interested in a few things that you mentioned:

• I do not think that it was the intention of anyone participating in this thread to compare Malta with India (or other large countries). The same criteria of notability apply to persons from any country.
• I agree that chessbase is considered a "reliable source" for use as a reference in Wikipedia articles about chess players. I read the article about the European Small Nations Championships (weeks ago, before this discussion had begun), and I have played over the game Berend-Mizzi, which, I might add, is an excellent game, enjoyable to play over. However, this article would not be considered "significant coverage" for purposes of evaluating the WP:GNG criteria. Mizzi's name is not mentioned in the text of the article, only in the tournament crosstable, and in the list of game scores. He didn't win first or even second prize.

• I note that there is no article in English Wikipedia about the winner of the tournament, Lance Henderson, although he is a grandmaster, and the article looks like "significant coverage" for him. If you want to apply your obvious writing and editing skills to creating an article in English Wikipedia, you might consider an article about Lance Henderson.

• The article Maltese Chess Championship includes a table of the junior champions, in which Jack Mizzi's name appears.

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just for context, IM's are not always considered notable, FM's rarely are, and CM's almost never are, unless they have significant achievements in another field. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I will not debate why there are no articles about stronger players. Probably there should be. I declared my COI about this article.

  Following this experience, with so many constructive comments I may consider writing other articles. But I have to be honest that it is exhausting to write a new article.

  About the Small Nations, and the participating IM and FMs, all participants had won their country's championships with the exception of Jack who was sent as a replacement because he had placed third (1st and 2nd couldn't make the trip) in the previous national championships. IM Fred is very well known (he used to play in Germany) and Jack's win against him is notable. It such happened that it was the first game of the tournament and Jack was both the youngest and the lowest rated of the tournament, certainly the under dog. It is interesting that you found the time to go through the game. ATM622 (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Recently Mizzi has been awarded the Blitz National Champion title and the Rapid National Champion title. Note that these were the Malta National Championships and not Junior Championships. The article has been updated. ATM622 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships list Mizzi as the newly crowned Blitz and Rapid National Champion. ATM622 (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I would say this passes notability criteria. However, I am not the expert, just a reviewer of draft articles. If there is no objection during the next week, I will approve the draft for publication in article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It still doesn't pass notability criteria. The criteria have been discussed above so I won't repeat them here, but if you have specific questions, go ahead and ask. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Cobblet stated above, Things would be different if he were to win the Maltese Chess Championship, not just the junior championship.. Well, he just won the Maltese Chess Championship. Is there a problem with the titles he won? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The rapid chess championship is a separate tournament from the regular chess championship. Likewise the blitz chess championship is separate. Games in these tournaments are played at a higher speed than games in the regular tournament, e.g. 3 minutes for the whole game for each player in the blitz. It is not correct to say that he won the Maltese Chess Championship.

That's actually not the main point. A person or a thing is notable if and only if it gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Two of the sources cited for the rapid and blitz tournaments are chess-results.com, and as discussed above, coverage by chess-results.com is not considered significant. The chessmalta.com reference doesn't even mention Mizzi's name (it seems to be from before the tournament). The netnews.com.mt reference seems to be a local news source, and as I mentioned above, the significance has to be discounted for that reason. (It's as if I had won a tournament in my city, Pittsburgh, and it were mentioned in the Pittsburgh newspapers.) Bruce leverett (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Rapid_Championships. And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_Chess_Championship#Malta_Blitz_Championships. Clearly show that these are part of the Maltese Championships. ATM622 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The Maltese Championship Cycle consists of 1) the open championships 2) the junior championship 3) the rapid Championship 4) the blitz chapionship. As listed in the Wikipedia article. ATM622 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Another news journal captured the news as per reference [58] https://one.com.mt/chess-jack-mizzi-jirbah-zewg-titli-nazzjonali-fgurnata-wahda/

The title reads "Jack Mizzi wins 2 National Championships in the same day" ATM622 (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

CHESS: JACK MIZZI WINS TWO NATIONAL TITLES IN ONE DAY by Mario Bonnici 10 December 2022

Young local chess player Jack Mizzi has continued his success in the sport as he recently won two major titles in the space of a day.

Mizzi, who is still 16 years old, won the title of national Rapid and Blitz champion.

Jack Mizzi won the Rapid with 4.5 points and a few hours later he won the Blitz championship with 7.5 points. ATM622 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I also updated the references and removed the primary chess-results links as per recommendation. ATM622 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As to Pittsburgh comment, the two journals are National journals and they recognised the 2 National titles obtained in one day, one of which I translated using Google translate for your convenience. ATM622 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I note that reviewer Pichemist approved the draft and moved it to article space yesterday. If anyone in this Wikiproject has a problem with that, WP:AFD is the next step. From my perspective, however, I think the subject passes the notability threshold. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. ATM622 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Renaming Queen's Pawn Game and King's Pawn Game

Any feedback against implementing ChessCreator's 2008 idea here Talk:Queen's Pawn Game#Queen's Pawn Opening, coupled w/ my suggestion for REDIRECT, and ditto process for the KP's Game article? p.s. See also Talk:King's Pawn Game#King's Pawn Opening. --IHTS (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Fact is neither term is commonly used by chess players. Even "open game" for 1.e4 e5 is rare. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The 1.e4 e5 article has to have some title or other. The current title (Open Game) at least has some justification in Hooper & Whyld 1996, p. 279, "open game, a game that begins 1.e4 e5." --IHTS (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and "200 Open Games" by David Bronstein. That term has some currency, but you don't hear chess players saying "it was an Open Game, and he played a Giuoco Piano". They just say "it was a Giuoco Piano". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Right, but names used are typically at the highest level of branching; so, 1.e4 e5 2.a3 a5 might have to be called "Open game". Re 1.d4 d5 (article Closed Game), Hooper & Whyld have entry "close opening, one that begins 1.d4 d5". Am not suggesting we change those article titles, even tho if following OCC the names w/ be changed to 'Open game' and 'Close opening', respectively. Did you have a change idea here, or? --IHTS (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No urgency. I don't see any particular necessity to change "King's Pawn Game" to "King's Pawn Opening" either. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Never suggested any urgency or necessity, simply agreed w/ ChessCreator saying QP Opening is "a more precise name". (If that's true, then the suggested change is a slight article improvement, or improvements if done for both QP & KP.) I opened the thread here asking if anyone objected/any feedback against. Not interpreting your "no urgency" and "don't see any particular necessity" as arguments against. p.s. Doubt I'll solicit consensus for a change like this in future, again. Will just WP:BOLD them. --IHTS (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The KP/QP "game" → "opening" move makes sense to me. Seems that's much more frequently how I hear them described.

As for "open game" and "closed game", I've long though those were weird titles, but figured they must appear in the preponderance of old books. I've always known them as "double king pawn" and "double queen pawn" openings. Grabbing the first book I have ready to hand, Modern Chess Openings uses "double king pawn" and "double queen pawn". The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings doesn't seem to give it a name. e4 is "king's pawn" but the names appear to just be for the moves that follow e5. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rhododendrites (also see my comment at Talk:Queen's Pawn Game#Queen's Pawn Opening), "queen's pawn game" and "queen's pawn opening" aren't names, they're just placeholders for names, and replacing one with the other isn't progress, it's just churn. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

? Only thing I said about the "game" -> "opening" move was that it made sense, and seems more common, anecdotally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I was agreeing with the "Meh". Bruce leverett (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Mechanical Turk

Template:French chess grandmasters

Hi WikiProject Chess. I notice there are quite a few differences between Template:French chess grandmasters and the corresponding template on the French Wikipedia. I don't know which (if either) is correct (I don't know much about chess, I just stumbled across the differences between the templates), but just thought I would let you know. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

I have thought of some issues about sources that repeatedly come up in chess articles. I am inclined to mention them in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Sources, but am running them past the rest of you first:

• Appearance in chessresults.com does not indicate notability, either for individuals or for tournaments.
• chessgames.com does not meet the usual criteria for a reliable source. It is handy to cite it to allow readers to click through a game score, but if one really wants to talk about a game, one should have a more conventional reliable source as well. Note that the comments ("kibitzing") on games at this site are, like comment sections everywhere, a third rail for Wikipedia editors. Also I have to mention that I have cited an article at chessgames.com as if it were a reliable source, namely, David Moody's U.S. Open Tournament Index.
• chess365 has the same problems as chessgames.com.
• Bill Wall has a set of articles about chess history. They have moved around a lot over the years, but are alive and are maintained, currently here. I cannot personally vouch for his reliability as a secondary source, but at least the most recent versions of these articles themselves cite sources, which is a helpful thing to do.

Bruce leverett (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

None of these, including Bill Wall, is a reliable source: they do not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." There is good research being done by certain people at Chessgames, but it would be better to directly cite the sources those people provide. Cobblet (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Article on Parham Maghsoodloo needs expanding

Parham Maghsoodloo has quickly risen in the FIDE ranking over the last two years – he's now ranked 19 in the world, but the article is hardly more than a stub. Joriki (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the reliability of a chess magazine

Greetings, all. You may want to participate in the discussion that started here about the reliability as a reliable source in Wikipedia of the chess magazine Kingpin. -The Gnome (talk) 07:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2023

Just created the article for the FIDE Grand Swiss Tournament 2023. I encourage y'all to contribute if you find sources, although I expect coverage to be slow until September or so. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 07:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:World Chess Championships

The individual Candidate Tournaments point to Template:World Chess Championships, but they are not linked there. Ideally the articles which contain a template and those that a template points to should be the same, should it be altered one way or another?Naraht (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't find who asked me, but Wikipedia:BIDIRECTIONAL is in the guideline.Naraht (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I don'T think the Candidates tournaments articles should use the template. It's pretty crowded anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

World Cup 2023

Hi, I recently created the page for the upcoming FIDE World Cup, if anyone knows of qualifiers who are not mentioned in the article, please feel free to add them (preferably with sources). Thanks A3811 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

New Page, Advice/Feedback: FM William Graif

Hi, I have officially disclosed my Conflict Of Interest for the following Draft that I just finished: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Graif

Am brand new to Wikipedia editing, so please let me know your thoughts/feedback/advice/edits/etc :) have not yet officially submitted for review.

Thanks so much! -William Binchy10 (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Need editors for this draft. Please read and let me know thoughts. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Graif Binchy10 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I doubt this player passes WP:GNG. School awards, beating a GM in a simul.... it all just looks like so much padding to me. FMs usually are not considered notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Per what you just linked, are there not several reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of Graif? The list of references is quite long, more extensive than many biographies I have seen on wiki Binchy10 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 is trying to dissuade you from embarrassing yourself. Do you not realize how ridiculous this article looks next to, for example, Praveen Balakrishnan or John M. Burke? Also User:Greenman is offering you good advice. On the talk page of your draft article, I have mentioned that WP:Autobiography strongly discourages projects like this one. How many experienced editors have to tell you this is a waste of time, before you understand it? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your comparison is an apt one: the GMs have even greater chess accomplishments, sure, but the subject here has chess accomplishments *in addition to* community involvement that is very notable (as evidenced by ample media coverage and other sources, as cited). While I disagree with your view on the GNG of this, I don't disagree that the draft could be improved by others, which is why I am posting here. If you would like to assist on the draft, I would certainly welcome that, but otherwise I will politely ask that you refrain from posting in various places about your already-expressed personal opinion that the article does not meet GNG. Thank you, and all the best. Binchy10 (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In furtherance of the GNG argument, I will say that I think it to be quite clear that someone with this extent of media coverage (from numerous highly reputable sites) and sources across the internet should meet the standards for Notability. Yes, there are others with higher chess ratings. Nonetheless, I think it would certainly be doing Wikipedians (and the internet as a whole) a favor by consolidating all of this information about Graif that is across the web. Is this, and improving Wikipedia, not our goal?

Regardless, I would not like to argue further about the GNG (I didn't want to argue about it at all), but rather recruit editors for the Draft. The GNG will be decided not here, but on the Review. And the first Review stated that the tone ought to be more neutral, which is why I am here seeking other editors. Thank you :) Binchy10 (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Those articles about strong US junior players are restrained in tone and only list actually notable accomplishments, not being a master of Connect 4 or beating their dad or getting a gold star from their teacher or being friends with a baseball pro. Seriously, don't try to write your own bio on wikipedia. If and when your achievements are genuinely notable (e.g. winning the Canadian championship or getting a GM title) someone will write an article. While it doesn't have official policy standing, we use WP:NCHESS as a guide, and your achievements to date just aren't in the ball park. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I would welcome edits in tone, and deletion of parts that are not considered notable. I think this should not be judged *strictly* based off of the accomplishments as listed on your link, but rather on the notability of the person as a whole. Binchy10 (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll find people are unwilling to devote any time to an article that almost certainly won't get accepted. See also WP:NOTCV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, especially since, it's not like it's 95% of the way there. To get this draft to a suitable state would take a lot of work. It's not really a productive use of editors' time given the lack of notability. --SubSeven (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)