Talk:Priyome

Help Welcome

There are so many Russian examples of this technique and so few Western, would like to find some common examples with board diagrams that are acceptable to all chess editors here, thanks! Phoenixthebird (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are so few Western examples because "priyome" is a term completely unknown in English, even in chess literature. Quale (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your "completely unknown" opinion, see comments below under English use. Please withold judgment and assume value until additional references are provided, including the judgment that you "guess" that the term is never used by Soltis, even though the exact page reference is already given, thanks. By the way, looking at your "works in progress" pages makes me tired. Sorry I requested (below) you help with this, didn't realize how much you were already working on. Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

I realize this is still a work in progress, but I am nevertheless puzzled by the following:

How is a link to Yahoo's Babelfish translating service supposed to reference the statement that the term "priyome" is "used directly in English"?
Why is the title "priyome" (prepositional case) and not "priyom" (nominative case)?
Speaking of the title, why is a transliteration of the Russian word used as an article title? Why does WP:UE not apply here (this kind of intersects with the first question)?
Why is Russian wiki mentioned directly in the article? Other wikis can neither serve as references nor should be mentioned in the articles at all (unless those articles deal with the wikis themselves, of course). See WP:SELF for details.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 27, 2010; 13:56 (UTC)

-- Good questions! 1. When you enter the term in Babelfish, it returns the same term (same in all other translation programs, eg. Google) which is simply reference in case anyone needs it, to the transliteration. Not a particularly big deal if we can find other references. -- You're correct that the e is prepositional, but it is also the idiomatic use. You'll see the prepositional used as the predominant form in all references and chess texts. But a "priyom redirects here" or vice versa would solve the problem and enhance the article. -- The transliteration is a subtle question, and the idiomatic use is a similar answer. The term, although a transliteration, is similar to a more generalized chess idiom, used directly in many languages including Italian, Spanish and English, such as "pawn structure." WP:UE would not apply because the prepositional form is the common English usage, or you could say WP:UE does apply and is correctly used as the common English usage. Chess books use the prepositional form to describe the move and concept. -- You're right about the Russian wiki, I've removed it. THANKS for taking the time to check this out. Phoenixthebird (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the answers. On the first item, I would like to point out that if you plug any kind of gibberish into the babelfish box, it will return you that exact same gibberish back, transliterated. This means simply that the word one attempts to translate is not in their dictionaries, not that it is how it is supposed to be used in English (the latter would be a pretty far-fetched conjecture; I would argue even that it qualifies as original research). Also, not that it matters, but when I tried entering "приёме" (and also "приеме" just to be sure), it returns "the method" as the translation.

On the second item, I am not a chess buff (and whatever I know about chess came from the Russian texts, not English), but it seems to me that even if the usage of "priyome" is idiomatic, we should still be using a translation which, according to you, is readily available. I have nothing against saying in the body of the article that in English, "prime" or "pawn structure" (or whatever the correct term is; sorry if I am confusing the terms here—I'm not a chess expert) is also referred to as "priyome", but we have pretty clear guidelines regarding the article titles—WP:UE states that if there is a good English replacement, that's what should be used instead of transliteration. Is there any reason why the contents of this article can't be merged into pawn structure (or some other appropriate target)?

Once again, thanks for taking time to answer; I certainly appreciate it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 27, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)

Excellent points. I'll look for a better transliteration source. The problems with merging this are: 1. It is a general term in all chess, not just Russian chess (even though Russians in my humble opinion dominate the field innovatively and still have the best training). 2. You could merge it in a section called "chess terms" since it is unique, but there is no such article yet, probably because it would be huge. Might fit under chess strategy, I'll have to think about that one. Pawn Structure is only one of hundreds of moves where the "one best move" would apply. 3. This is a Russian word, but it has been widely adopted in all languages to refer to the most appropriate or relevant move. Since you're expert in the language, you probably know it from the police radio response, which generally means "ready for your response." I'm not an etymologist, but can see how this relates to the "best response" in general in certain board situations. I'm working on more published references to the use, and more board examples, and can use them even if we do find a better place to move it to. Thanks again for your time, I'm an old Chicago person from years ago (Rogers Park, Devon and Sheridan many lifetimes ago, as well as Wilmette, South side and West near Ohare. Studied fencing under a Russian Olympian in Pittsburgh for a bit when I was younger.). Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just rechecked WP:UE and it does not apply here because the Russian word is the worldwide "generic" term for the technique. A good example is en passant in chess-- you could translate it into English as "in passing" (which it means), but since it is always used in French by everyone, no one translates it. I'm not anti-English or trying to defend Russian or anything, it is just that this is the generic use for the term in publications in all languages. Nobody translates en passant into Italian, English, etc. I'm probably explaining this in a very sloppy way, but you're bright and will get what I'm trying to say! Phoenixthebird (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your responses. I do wish I could offer you a tangible compromise solution, but unfortunately my knowledge of chess is way too limited for that. Reflexing on what my problem with the title is, I guess it's the fact that the term "priyome" (unlike the term "en passante") is not listed in any English-language dictionaries, hence it should be considered a raw transliteration, not a loanword. And transliterations, unlike loanwords, do not qualify as "English" under WP:UE, even if they are used in the specialized literature. English books on the Russian history, for example, often use transliterations heavily to refer to the concepts which are hard to translate into English, but that does not make those transliterations English words. We normally try merging such concepts into some other articles of broader scope, or stick them under descriptive titles, or even use loanwords from other languages (a good example would be Russian barshchina, which in Wikipedia is discussed under corvée and serfdom in Russia). I am suggesting same should be done with "priyome", even though I can't readily suggest what other article this one should be merged into. Something to consider while you keep working on this—thanks for your efforts at any rate! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2010; 13:46 (UTC)

Great points as usual! I'll discuss with some other chess editors, but I fear that if we merge under a very long section like Chess Strategy, they will suggest we break it out as its own article since it will be pretty long when we complete it! Maybe changing the title would work if we can find another closer English use or term, such as optimal chess moves, or best chess moves. It is in all the chess literature just like en passant, but perhaps has not yet caught up in English. Maybe a template of terms might be good, then I could nest it there. I need to brush up on my template creating skills. I also want to do one on parts of the brain, which is badly needed, as I've edited sections there that are terrible. Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing to consider is looking up the term in English chess dictionaries. I would think that if "priyome" is listed in some such dictionary, it will make a very appropriate reference, alleviating most of the concerns. Cheers and best of luck,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 28, 2010; 17:57 (UTC)

AWESOME Idea, I've got over 400 chess books and can use any number of them, I'll check the indexes and the various chess encyclopedias too!

Phoenixthebird (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen this word used in English

I don't think this article is appropriate for the English wikipedia as I have never seen this word used in English. Do any of the chess references given in the article actually contain the word "priyome"? I don't have the Soltis book Studying Chess Made Easy, but my guess is that "priyome" never appears in it. A Russian name for a chess concept is not an article on the English wikpedia if the Russian term is never used in English. Quale (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Soltis' book either, but from various reviews I have read of it on discussion boards, I believe that the term is used in that book. The book is a very new book however, released in April this year, and until the term receives wider usage it is probably a neologism. Without seeing the book, I wouldn't go as far as to definitively calling the article original research because if it follows Soltis closely, then everything is sourcable to that book, but I have doubts as to whether "priyome" meets notability requirements. If the term was coined for chess usage by Soltis, then it is not notable yet. What might save it is if Russian chess literature uses the term in the same way, Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it is OK to use available Russian sources to write English articles. Time will tell if this term will catch on like the "zugzwang", "tabiya", and "fianchetto", or whether it will slip into obscurity as it did with most of Hans Kmoch's terminology for pawns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle is right on direct use, and I thank you both! Soltis mentions the term directly many times in the book, including an entire section of examples with the header "Priyome." Sjakkalle is again right that we English speakers tend to be prejudicial about cross over words, but this is not a neologism in that it has appeared in several other English, Spanish and Italian chess books for many years by a number of players and authors. I'm working by email with a GM in London (I'm in Maine right now away from my library) to get additional English book references, and per Quale, cite the actual pages where the term appears, and their context, to expand this stub. As you can see above, we've got several outstanding Russian editors here to help, and there are dozens of directly translated Russian texts that maintain the nominitive term in use as it is here. There is no original research (other than my creating the board positions in Wiki format from move descriptions in games that are widely annotated). Soltis did not coin the term, it has been used in Russian, British and South American chess academies for at least 10 years, and Kasparov used it in an interview to describe a game he played in South America. As the stub notice says, it needs expansion, and if either of you are willing to do a little research, I'd be pleased, otherwise I will keep adding references as I get them until it graduates beyond stub status. Thanks! Phoenixthebird (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me. I'm content to wait to see what you and others come up with. (It is often said that there is no deadline in wikipedia.) The entries in the External links section gave me pause, as I couldn't find "priyome" used in any of them. I'm quite certain that Staunton and Ed Lasker would not have found priyome to be a familiar term. It's good that I was wrong about the Soltis book, but priyome might need evidence of more wide-spread usage to support an article or an entry in Glossary of chess. If Mark Dvoretsky, for example, used it in any of his English language books I would view that as a big boost to notability. Thanks for your work to improve coverage of chess in wikipedia. Editors such as yourself who have ability to make use of non-English sources (especially Russian for chess) can help a lot in ways that I certainly can't. Quale (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speak Russian but my written skills are pretty poor. There are other great Russian language people here luckily. I'm Master rated but very old so my game is not what it used to be, but what I lack in speed I make up for in a nice library, including a lot of old classics before AN. Mark has used the term numerous times in his Russian books and I'm combing back through Endgame Manual, Strategy and others in English to get us some page references. It is classy of you to thank me for helping, but looking at what you are doing-- wow! If I can help with any of your research, just let me know. Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word appears several times in chapter 6 (at least) of How to Study Chess by Andy Soltis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]