Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

GOAT

I would like to widen this discussion at the Magnus Carlsen page. I believe we should refrain from putting a "greatest of all time" or "one of the greatest of all time" claim in any player's lead section, whether it's Fischer or Morphy or Kasparov or Carlsen or Karpov or Anand or anyone else. Sure, Leonard Barden's allowed to express opinions on this in his column as is anyone else, but it is not encyclopedic information. We may include such claims in a "legacy" or "assessment" section ("chess writer John Boggs considers Raskolnikov to be the greatest player of all time") but they should be sourced and attributed. The fact being sourced is not that Raskolnikov was the greatest player of all time, but that John Boggs considers Raskolnikov to be the greatest player of all time. If we can come to a consensus on this, we can include this consensus on the main WP:CHESS page and reference it next time someone comes along with a "greatest of all time" claim. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This seems straightforward enough that I don't see what a chess-specific consensus could really add. The great WP:NOTPROMOTION and the legendary WP:PUFFERY make this celebrated point brilliantly clear. Cobblet (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Certainly I think it is valid to put the views of reliable sources on a player's place in history in a Legacy section. But I agree that in the lead, it's probably not a good idea. Better to put their accomplishments and let that speak for itself. P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Along those lines and agreeing with Maxbrowne2, I don't think it's a good idea for the encyclopedia to claim "Many people claim xxxx to be the greatest of all time" and then bury who those people are in the footnotes. The persons making the claim should be named explicitly in the article text, not hidden in the footnotes. It may be that we should avoid saying "many people claim" and instead just list the significant people who made the claim and let the reader judge for herself. All the same, it is significant that Philidor, Morphy, Capablanca, Fischer and Kasparov were widely considered in their day to be the greatest chess players ever. We should find some way to express that. Quale (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Coming into this late... I disagree with removing it from the leads entirely. There are many sources saying either Fischer and Kasparov was the GOAT. I think it is an important part of the articles, and therefore deserves a mention in the leads of those two (and no one else, except possibly Carlsen, if there are significant numbers of experts saying he is GOAT). I agree though that they should not be buried in the footnotes; the lead should say "many" (without a citation), and the article should expand it (as is WP style) in a legacy section. Of course, the danger is that editors will engage in WP:OR and go looking for experts who endorse their favourite, so ideally we want summary statements ("most experts believe the GOAT was X" not "I believe the GOAT was X"). The only such statement I am aware of is that of Leonard Barden, and he is such a long-standing writer I believe his assessment qualifies as encyclopedic. I agree it is problematic, and perhaps the easiest practical solution is to remove it from all the leads; but I believe the ideal solution (when one day WP is perfect) is to have a summary statement in the leads of Fischer and Kasparov (and maybe Carlsen one day). Adpete (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
On second thoughts... perhaps I could be persuaded if the lead emphasised their greatness in other ways. Adpete (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is satisfying when the lead can give the reader a good idea of why the person is notable, in a single sentence. I think "something related to GOAT" tends to be too easy a way out, but I don't know.
Some of the leads of our articles use the word "dominant", and this is a useful word, because it separates some World Champions (Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Carlsen) from some others (Euwe, Khalifman, etc.). Bruce leverett (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Most of us are fed up with arguing with IP's from India over whether Fischer or Morphy or Kasparov or Anand or Carlsen are the GOAT. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Community wishlist - ChessBrowser

Hi all.

there were several discussions and proposals, for years now, regarding adding a "pgn viewer" (such as exists in almost any chess-related website to show/animate/examine games) to wikipedia. Several communities, specifically hewiki and ruwiki, installed a community-developed javascript-based pgn viewer, and a proposal to install this script on enwiki was supported, but never executed due to objections or hesitation from the technical community, which largely expressed the view that this should be done by an extension.

User:Wugapodes developed an extension, in small part based on the hewiki script, which implements a "pgn viewer". once this extension is installed on WMF wikis, we will have our viewer.

the process to add the extension is "stuck", and i submitted a request to the ongoing wishlist submission: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Miscellaneous/Add ChessBrowser extension to WMF wikis.

please review the request, and comment/support/oppose.

thank you all, - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Great idea kipod! I've edited the proposal to try and make it as attractive to the wider community as possible. I also moved it to meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Multimedia and Commons/Interactive chess content which is a more popular category and should hopefully get more eyes on it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes:: thanks! while i have you attention, quick question: is there an active wiki where the extension is demoed? if not, can you think of a way to get one up and running? this can make the wishlist item more "tangible" to people who may not necessarily be familiar with other pgn viewers (and if i may say so myself, . if there is one, it will be good to link to it from the request (not to mention that i'd love to see one myself...) peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so; I looked around the test wikis and couldn't find it. @DannyS712: did you ever set the extension up somewhere? If not, I think we could link to a page on hewiki or ruwiki since the javascript is pretty similar. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
No, its still waiting for reviews (phab:T244076) but the wishlist might result in the community tech team being able to support deployment DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Voting stage started for community wishlist

Hi all. if you think having an interactive chess viewer can improve chess related content, and specifically articles, please vote for this proposal, here: meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Multimedia and Commons/Interactive chess content. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

linking to lichess stockfish analysis

Someone wanted to add stockfish analysis of Morphy-Duke of Brunswick to the article. ("Opera Game" isn't a good title but that's another issue). I moved it to external links, but even there I think it's a dangerous precedent. I would be in favour of removing it entirely, just as if someone plugged a position into sf at home and posted the results in wikipedia. i.e. original research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing it, but calling it OR would be confusing. Maybe call it an unreliable source? Bruce leverett (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
It's kind of OR by stealth. You can't put your own engine analysis on wikipedia, but just copy/paste the PGN to lichess and voila, the Stockfish analysis is on the internet and can be linked to. I noticed this in the Game of the Century article too, someone wanted to criticize 7...c6 (a book move) as "inaccurate". I suppose analysis on lichess could be described as "user generated". Anyway let's establish precisely which policy or guideline they are violating so that this doesn't become a trend on wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I didn't realize that this was just something copy/pasted into an analysis engine by the Wikipedia editor himself. OK, yes, it's definitely OR. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I've created a new shortcut WP:CHESSENGINE to deal with such issues in future. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The '2020 in chess' article

Because of the pandemic eliminating most of the board tournaments in 2020, and because the top players in the world participated so much in online tournaments, we should really include in the 2020 in chess article results of top level online chess tournaments. Thoughts? Kingturtle = (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

That is certainly allowed. Ideally the tournament will have been given a non-trivial mention by a third0party WP:RS that is more than a database of tournament crosstables. I would say that TWIC, for example, could suffice. Quale (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Chess arguably became more popular in 2020, so it would be a misrepresentation to report it only as a hiatus in classical chess.Brittle heaven (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Women's chess

New article! If anyone has sources please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know there was such a game. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Women in chess is indeed a better title. P-K3 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I like how it's going, a good article will eventually evolve even if the current one is crap. And it's something that should be covered. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Along those lines, I created Category:Women's chess some years ago. I don't remember precise details, but I think it was probably to get chess represented in Category:Women's sports. Most likely I just named it like most of its other subcategories, but I agree that Category:Women in chess would be a better name. I would support a WP:CFD. Quale (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur the article is in desperate need of improvement, but will discuss at its talk. CapnZapp (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Changing "he" pronoun to "they"

I notice many chess articles use "he" when referring to generic players ("white must move his bishop"). I would like to update these (particularly articles on chess openings) to either "they", or rewording to avoid pronouns ("white's bishop must move").

Just wanted to check that there isn't some sort of convention in favour of "he" that I'm not aware of. (To be super clear, I'm not proposing changing anything when an actual male player is being referred to.) Are there any issues with this? Stevage 05:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not know of any such convention. But, I very much prefer rewording to avoid pronouns, when possible. I find singular "they" very distracting, as much so as neutral "he". But anyway, Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language says, "There is no Wikipedia consensus either for or against the singular they." Bruce leverett (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
This came up several years ago, 5-10 years ago, I think. Originally he/his was mostly used, but someone objected and changed them to mostly they/their, using a plural word as singular. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Please avoid lazy wholesale substitution of "they" for "he". Much better to write around it (e.g. "the black king" rather than "their king"). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"When in doubt, rewrite it." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
"They" is much better than "he", but usually both can be avoided ("white's bishop must move"). EDIT: Snap. Didn't realise the OP suggested this exact rewriting for their example. — Bilorv (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical top 100 ratings

I just noticed that Hou Yifan says that three women (Hou, Maia Chiburdanidze, and Judit Polgar) have made the top 100 list, but the new article, Women in chess, says only two. Anyone know how I can look this up? Bruce leverett (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

olimpbase.org has all the lists up to 2001, FIDE goes back to 2003. Can try benoni.de for 2001-2003. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Chiburdanidze was indeed briefly ranked in the top 100. http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/player/Chiburdanidze,%20Maia.html MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chess/archive4

I've started a FAR for this article as it needs much improvement to meet modern standards IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone else interested in taking this on? I may have time in January to work on some of the issues raised. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Staircase maneuver

Does Staircase maneuver better belong merged to Chess tactic, or as is (stand-alone article)? --IHTS (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge to queen versus pawn endgame. I've also seen the motif referred to as a ladder, but cannot recall a RS off the top of my head. Cobblet (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thx. --IHTS (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable games

It seems from this page's archives that "Notable games" sections is something that has been previously discussed quite a few times in the past. Is there any specific easy-to-understand guidance or criteria for these types of sections? The particular example I'm thinking of is Mark Paragua#Notable games which is basically an embedded list of a few games, but no associated prose which might give a hint as to why these particular games are "notable". I understand that "notable" as it's being used in this context is probably not referring to WP:N, but it seems there should be something more to a section like this that just a few embedded external links to game scores. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A claim that a particular game is notable should be treated as any other information provided in an article. If the claim is unsourced, it should be challenged and removed. Cobblet (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, in some of the biographies, the "Notable games" section seems to be perfunctory. Indeed, for each game, there should be some explanation of why the game is notable. (As you probably already know, inclusion in the chessgames.com database is not a guarantee, or even a strong hint, of notability.) You have probably seen it already, but my own thoughts on notable games are in the discussion at the start of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 34. It is not going to be easy to slog through. There should be some thumbnail guidance that you could look at, but I don't know of any. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd consider a "notable" game to be one that his been published in multiple sources. Schiffers-Harmonist easily qualifies, other Schiffers games probably don't. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The process to decide whether to include a notable game of a player in an article is exactly the same as the process to decide whether any other content about that player is worth including. The content must meet Wikipedia's core content policies. (The list of Mark Paragua's games fails this.) Beyond that, what content is encyclopedic and how much weight should be allotted to it is a matter of judgment by editors, to be determined through discussion and consensus if necessary. It's as simple as that. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate all of the input and kind of get what everyone is saying. I can understand how certain games might be considered significant in a particular player's career either because of their opponent or because the game itself was theoretically significant. I also understand WP:CSC is, for the most part, basically something that's to be sorted out on a case-by-case basis through article talk page discussion. There might be some benefit, however, to actually developing some sort of general project-wide guidance when it comes to this type of thing, even if it means nothing more than to say what's been posted above by others. Looking at Mark Paragua#Notable games, I can click on the links provided for those games, but I can't say why they would be considered notable; moreover, even if I did offer an opinion on such a thing, that would seem to be my WP:OR. The games themselves are WP:PRIMARY sources, but it seems that any interpretation or claims about them need to be supported by WP:SECONDARY sources, much like other types of article content. I'm tempted to simply remove the embedded links per WP:CS#Avoid embedded external links, WP:ELLIST and WP:EL#cite_note-7, but that still leave an supported list of games. The section was added here back in 2008, but the editor who added it hasn't been active for a few years; so, it's seems unlikely they would clarify why they added it if asked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
To improve the list of games in Mark Paragua, as when one encounters unsourced material in any article, one can either find sources, or rip out the material. I did a quick search for the games with Aronian, Movsesian, and Dreev, but I'm not sure that what I found with Google is good enough; but I may have missed something. The game with Movsesian is mentioned in the text of the article, so having a link to the chessgames.com score in a Notable Games section makes some sense.
It might indeed be a good idea for us to have a few tips on "Notable games" in this project page. As other editors have pointed out, the notability rules are no different for chess games than they are for other material. But, many chess biographies were written before those rules were widely observed. And, if the topic comes to this talk page often enough, that justifies mentioning it in the project page. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Your understanding is completely correct, with the exception that WP:CSC is part of WP:SAL, which is a guideline for stand-alone lists (which generally need to meet notability for the group of list items as a whole, necessitating criteria for inclusion in the group) and does not apply to embedded lists that are not the primary focus of the article. A list such as the example given at MOS:LIST#"Children" (i.e., indentation) does not need to meet any particular selection criteria – it's just a way of presenting related information within an article. See also WP:NOTEWORTHY, which I basically restated in my comments above.
Regarding the list of Mark Paragua games, it's also unlikely that a selection of games from 2000–2005 could be representative of a career that has lasted far longer than that. I'd footnote the article text mentioning the World Cup win against Movsesian with a link to the Chessgames page, and delete the entire "Notable games" section, unless you can improve on Bruce's search and provide the necessary secondary sources. Cobblet (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett and Cobblet: Thank you for the additional input. Per the suggestion(s) given above, I went ahead and WP:BOLDly removed the "Notable games" section from the Paragua article and provided a link to the Pragua-Dreev game as a primary source citation to the earlier mention of the game in an another section. I couldn't find anything on the other games and wasn't sure how to incorporate them into the article; so, I just removed them. I also did some other cleaning up of the article that I felt was needed, but perhaps I did a little too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Chess equivalent to MOS DOCTOR

Is there an equivalent to MOS:DOCTOR when it comes to chess player bios? I’m asking because of the way the title “GM” is being used in Julio Sadorra when reference is being made back to the subject of the article. For example, in Julio Sadorra#Other notable tournaments, “GM Sadorra” is being used instead of simply “Sadorra”. There are other examples of this in other sections of the article as well, and the same thing can also be seen in other Filipino chess player bios being expanded upon by the same editor. I remember this being a somewhat common practice followed by chess periodicals and websites, but I’m not sure how Wikipedia handles it. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

We apply MOS:DOCTOR and do not give chess player titles unless they are specifically relevant to the context. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Filipino chess player bios

Would some member or member of WT:CHESS taking a look at some of Obetpaguia's recent editing of Filipino chess player bios? Obetpaguia has been quite active recently improving a number of bios and appears to be quite knowledgeable on the subject matter; however, they do seem to be adding an excessive amount of detail as well as introducing some formatting and others errors in some cases. I tried reaching out to them about these things on their user talk page and even let them know about this WikiProject, but never got a response. In addition, there does seem to be some WP:Namechecking (though not being done in bad faith) going on when it comes to listing individual tournament results (not only the tournaments themselves, but the individual tournament participants by name) as well as other WP:NOTEVERYTHING type of detail, etc. Obetpaguia's writing style has a WP:NEWSSTYLE feel to it as if the content was intended to be content intended for some newspaper or magazine instead of a Wikipedia article; in one case an entire section was copied-and-pasted verbatim from a website and needed to be flagged for WP:COPYVIO cleanup. Some of my concerns might be nothing more than differences in personal preferences or national variety of English, but Obetpaguia is editing at a fairly high pace and it's kind of hard to keep up; so, more people looking at things would be helpful to see what if any cleaning up is necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just want to update that Obetpaguia has ended up being blocked because they were added copyright violations to articles; they were, it seems, copying-and-pasting entire sections of online articles about players into their corresponding Wikipedia articles. Apparently, they were warned about this thing as far back as 2009 as well as about some other things, but were completely unresponsive on any talk page (including their user talk page) at all since they started editing Wikipedia in 2006. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

New article, Martin Minski

With many thanks to Chiroubles, Martin Minski is now in mainspace. There's possibly a few maintenance things that need to be done—such as external links or references to common chess-based resources that I'm not aware of—so I'm mentioning it here. There may also be some content that can be moved from the Latvian version. Perryprog (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Greatest of all time"

Hello. I came across these discussions Talk:Magnus Carlsen#GOAT, Talk:Garry Kasparov#The Greatest?, which resulted in the claims of "greatest of all time" being removed removed from several articles [1], [2] to name a couple. I have a few issues with this.

  • It cannot be claimed that a meaningful consensus was reached when participation in such discussions was limited. For example, on the Kasparov talk page, only three editors took part in the discussion, and I believe four in favour and one against at Carlsen's talk page.
  • This is quite the claim - many thousands of people are visiting Carlsen's page each day so I would like a clear consensus on this as it is bound to affect many people's views on these players.

I believe these claims should have remained in some form for the following reasons.

  • It is important to make a clear distinction between the 'standard' world champion (Smyslov, Petrosian etc.) and the world champions that are generally considered to be the greatest (Kasparov, Fischer etc.). The common reader won't see a difference as they'll simply read they are all world champions, won many events and beat other grandmasters.
  • There are many references pointing to the greatest of all time. Seeing as Wikipedia's content is dictated by sources, this information should be included. [3][4][5][6] to name but a few sources.
  • Many chess players will list their 'top 5' or 'top 10' or simply the greatest chess player in their opinion [7]. If the top players are talking about it, then Wikipedia probably should as well.
  • It's done almost everywhere else on Wikipedia. Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Pelé, Ayrton Senna. On these articles of professionals at the top of their discipline, you'll find phrases like "greatest of all time" or something similar.

Thank you for taking the time to read. I am more interested in reaching a definitive consensus on this, rather than reaching a specific outcome. I am also interested in having proper participation, rather than just a few people. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

If I take your third link ([8]), the 17 first best players in the list are all classical world champions with the addition of Paul Morphy, so you can replace
"X is one of the greatest chess players of all time"
by "X is one of the classical world chess champions or is Paul Morphy".
You don't need "greatest of all time". Just say "word champion".
Don't say "the greatest of all time", say "the best world champion".Cbigorgne (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
We achieved project-wide consensus that we have better things to do than argue about who is the greatest. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
You'll find more discussions of this, some of them substantial, in the archives of this talk page, and the archives of Talk:Bobby Fischer. But it may be that the most recent ones are the ones you have linked to associated with Kasparov and Carlsen.
Our experience over the years with "Many people think XXX was the greatest of all time" is that it is a magnet for people who get bent out of shape because they think that YYY was the greatest of all time. Pointing out that we have used nuanced wording like "Many people think" and using citations to multiple references does not keep the noise down. I do not know if other sports have this problem. Chess, unlike most sports (except boxing), has an individual world champion, and there have been about 20 of them since the sport started to be organized, and there are few or no quantitative measures that can be used for comparison, so I suspect that the craziness level in the talk pages of past chess world champions might be more than in other sport talk pages.
We have an article, Comparison of top chess players throughout history, which discusses the topic in a more general way. Would it be reasonable to link to that article in the "See Also" sections of the articles about individual players? Does that article need to be updated by adding discussion of more recent sources? Bruce leverett (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Poor English skills have also been an issue when dealing with these fanatics; try explaining that reporting a claim is not the same thing as making a claim to someone who can't construct a coherent grammatically correct English sentence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Importance, quality

As of today, the backlog of 100+ unclassified chess articles has been cleared. Maybe a destubathon would be a good next focus. Greenman (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Figure skating, chess, Wikidata, and automated reports

Hello WikiProject Chess,

I am posting here to share an example of automated reporting of sports based on Wikidata. I thought this would be interesting to this WikiProject because the documentation of chess games is easy as compared to other sports, and because I think that eventually Wikipedia use chess as a model for managing the documentation of many sports, in many languages. All of this is far-fetched right now, but I do want to share what I think is an interesting development.

First, thanks to קיפודנחש for their December 2020 technical development proposal in the annual community wishlist.

The proposal was to improve the way that Wikipedia displays chess images. This did not get enough votes, but I think that eventually this software will come to Wikimedia projects.

Now I want to share an example article on figure skating from French Wikinews

This skating article is special because it presents a table from Wikidata. Since the table is from Wikidata, any language version of Wikinews could present it.

In the chess and skating examples, I see the potential to use Wikidata to display content in any language. Sports reporting often includes quantitative data, so it is an ideal place to start for this.

There is not much substance to the idea of generating articles at scale from Wikidata, but I think there is potential. I am not asking anything of anyone here and I have nothing to offer to advance the development of chess in Wikipedia. However, when I was asking around about what other people thought of chess, someone shared with me this figure skating progress. There are lots of articles using that model, and the French Wikinews reportedly publishes these articles in some automated way. If we get an opportunity to develop data from chess as the model for documenting all sports, then I think we should consider it.

That's all I have - thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikidata is an interesting effort. I think at some point it we will be able to use wikidata queries to replace some tables such as in list of chess grandmasters. Quale (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What to do about a sourced but suboptimal variation?

At Queen versus pawn endgame#Bishop pawn, in the second example (attributed to Lolli), the move 4. Kf2 is suboptimal – 4. Ke4 wins more quickly (mate in move 8). After 4. Kf2, the variation shown, 4… Kd1, leads to mate in move 7, as shown, but black can instead play 4… Kd3, escaping to the centre and prolonging the game. Also, the variation shown requires finding nifty queen moves, whereas after 4. Ke4 Kd1 (the only move that doesn't lose the pawn immediately), 5. Kd3 seems more straighforward (though it allows a slight complication if black underpromotes to a knight with check). I'd like to "correct" the article, but my only source is a computer analysis, which I suspect doesn't count as a primary source. If the article were flat-out wrong, I'd correct it anyway, but it's more subtle than that, since the point here is how to demonstrate the win, not necessarily how to get the quickest mate, and it's not immediately obvious whether 4. Kf2 or 4. Ke4 demonstrates the win more effectively. The analysis would certainly benefit from mentioning the possibility 4. Ke4, though. What are the conventions in this regard? I presume this sort of situation must arise quite often with chess, that a computer analysis finds errors or improvements in old published studies but isn't itself published? Joriki (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Basically, engine analysis is original research and can't be used in wikipedia. Likewise engine analysis generated by online sites like lichess.org. In any case "suboptimal" moves are ok, if it wins then it's a good move. Sure you can go home earlier if you mate in 8 instead of 10, but making the move that mates in 10 is not an "error". Likewise chess awards no bonuses for being checkmated on move 60 instead of move 58. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC) By the way we often slip our "original research" in by finding a source that agrees with it. It's a bit sneaky but some of the old analysis just doesn't stand up to engine scrutiny. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Support for per-page JavaScript (such as a chess viewer)

An update from Phabricator task T8883: Allow page-specific inclusion of <script>s, etc. in header – there is now an extension in beta release, UseResource, that implements <usescript> and <usestyle> elements to load scripts/stylesheets from the MediaWiki namespace. From the Phabricator ticket comments, there still needs to be a review process and testing before it could be eligible for deployment on any WMF-operated wiki. This capability is of course not needed for the chess viewer extension that is being developed, but if for whatever reason that doesn't pan out, another step forward has been made in supporting a client-side script-based chess viewer. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the premature raising of hopes: that Phabricator task has been closed by someone who understandably feels that optional loading of gadgets is a better route to pursue, as in Phabricator task T63007: Allow specifying when a gadget should load (conditional, page title, action or namespace). So, back to waiting to see if conditional gadget loading gets implemented. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

New article stubs on individual chess tactics

One of these came up recently in a discussion about staircase maneuver, but in fact several stub articles on chess tactics have been created since December:

Some of these seem like good candidates to keep and expand, perhaps clearance sacrifice, king hunt and attraction (chess). Others probably should be redirected, double attack to fork (chess) and perhaps poisoned pawn (chess) to Poisoned Pawn Variation although the term poisoned is applied in other contexts to a loose pawn that shouldn't be captured. (That second usage is really a glossary term. Perhaps it could support an article under a slightly more general title such as pawn hunting.) Underpromotion (chess) must be redirected to promotion (chess)#Underpromotion as underpromotion gets extensive coverage in the parent article. Including a main article link to the new stub in the underpromotion section of promotion (chess) is a not funny joke. Some of them should just go away, as trapping the queen is just gaining material. Blitz blockade must go away because that isn't even a thing.

I bring this up here in the hope that someone more diplomatic than me can find a tactful way to handle these. The articles aren't terrible and some are acorns that should be tended so they grow.

Our coverage of chess tactics isn't very good and I don't want to discourage honest attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Reading Blitz blockade, I note that it is based on a game between F. Crabill and George Kvakovszky that appeared in Chess Life, July 1971, annotated by Hans Kmoch. Kmoch coined the phrase "blitz blockade" to annotate this contribution, saying, "To succeed quickly with such a slow-motion method requires appropriate cooperation of course." My web search has not uncovered any subsequent uses of this coinage. The creator of the article is the editor User:George.kvakovszky. So I suppose this is autobiographical.
Would "speedy deletion" or "proposed deletion" be appropriate here? Otherwise I would be willing to initiate an AfD. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Kmoch of course was famous for inventing technical terms used by noone else. If these are to be defined or described at all they should be in the articleon Kmoch. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it fits any CSD criteria. You could try a PROD. P-K3 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I always thought PRODs were a bit sneaky. I'd go for an AfD, it's sourced and maybe there's some content there that's usable in another article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I have initiated a PROD. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
None of the other articles are worth saving. I generally agree with the assessments by User:Quale. The editor appears to have read a recent chess beginner's book, A to Z Chess Tactics by George Huczek (Batsford), and picked a few concepts from it to create articles about. I am not sure that any of the topics merit more than a glossary entry. OK, that's just my opinion. But if, for example, Clearance sacrifice is worth a whole article, then the article will be based on some set of sources, such as textbooks or game collections or articles, and it is not obvious to me that this book by Huczek will play any role at all. So expanding this article will involve, essentially, starting from scratch.
In the case of Attraction (chess), I do not remember seeing this term before for the kind of tactics described, that is, I think that non-standard terminology is being used; correct me if I'm wrong. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's more usually known as a Decoy (chess), and the two articles should be merged one way or the other. — Bilorv (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've already redirected Poisoned Pawn and Double Attack. I'm not sure that any of them are worthy of separate articles.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Not too keen on the recent trend of moving new articles to draft space instead of leaving them to be improved

Draft:Bishop's Gambit wasn't bad, it just needed more specific sourcing. Nothing a little collaboration couldn't fix. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources in "Further reading" were good enough that WP:DRAFTIFY did not apply. Neither "The page is obviously unready for mainspace" nor "The topic appears unimportant, is possibly not worth the effort of fixing, and no great loss if deleted due to expiring in draftspace" were met. I'm sure this is much easier to assess as someone with subject knowledge though (I'll neither confirm nor deny having played the Bishop's Gambit). NPP has this workflow where draftify is often the least time-consuming route even if not the best and given the backlog I can understand why you'd want to get through it quickly. Pinging John B123, who draftified this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
The "Further Reading" section is not a references section - see Wikipedia:Further reading. The article was tagged as needing references on 14 March[9] and no effort was made to resolve the problem. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
From WP:DRAFTIFY:

As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if:

  1. the topic has some potential merit, and
  2. the article does not meet the required standard, and
  3. there is no evidence of active improvement.
All three of which are met. --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: I understand we can't expect you to have any chess knowledge and patrolling the queue is a difficult and thankless job, but let me lay out my impression of the version of the page you draftified and I'd like you to say whether if you had that knowledge you would have still draftified the article, or taken some other action.
Every work in the "Further reading" section has "King's Gambit" in the title (in some language) and the Bishop's Gambit is a major enough part of the King's Gambit that it would be unusual for such works to not mention it. In fact specific page numbers are given for three of the sources, which I can reasonably assume to be about the Bishop's Gambit, and some of the authors are alluded to in the prose in contexts which are likely a reference to those books. WP:DRAFTIFY expands upon the criterion "required standard", which means (to my reading) that all of 2a, 2b, 2c or 2d must hold, but 2a and 2b do not hold (I'd give the page C-class in a good mood and Start-class in a bad one, and it is a much-needed gap for WPChess). There is no requirement for a page to meet WP:MINREF for it to be marked as patrolled, but even so, it's hard to see what fact in the article is contentious enough to meet one of the four MINREF criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: As previously stated, the contents of a "Further Reading" section are not considered references to an article. From Wikipedia:Further reading: Further reading is not a list of general references, and from MOS:FURTHER: This section is not intended as a repository for general references. WP:MINREF is an essay not a policy or guideline. Of more relevance is WP:VERIFY, which is a policy and includes: All content must be verifiable... and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. --John B123 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@John B123: so your position is that if the 'Further reading' section had instead been named 'References' then the page would not have been draftified? Do you not see that this violates common sense, particularly in the case of a new user who cannot be expected to know such minutiae? — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I'm not saying anything of the sort. Please read my previous post in full. --John B123 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In the future, if you object to draftification, you can just move it back. You should just be ready for it to be taken to AfD if you do. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Unofficial World Champion"

Another hoary old edit warring chestnut... there is no such thing as an "unofficial world champion", we need to protect the integrity of articles like Paul Morphy and Adolf Anderssen. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Any opinions on this?

Discussion at The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) talk page: Talk:The_Queen's_Gambit_(miniseries)#Importance_grading. Personally I don't see anything that makes this series uniquely significant to WP:CHESS over and above other chess-related films, so that would mean it gets a "low" importance rating along with Pawn Sacrifice, Searching For Bobby Fischer etc. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on that (I probably would assume it's mid given its pop culture crossover, but meh). It occurs to me, however, that I don't even understand the project's importance level descriptions. "Adds important further details"? What is "add" doing there? "Further details" beyond what? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added my two cents to the discussion. I don't see myself contributing much more than what I already have. Further input is welcome. Cobblet (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The Canal attack

Is the Canal attack (An unlisted opening) a WIP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberM10 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Chess Life and Chess Review are available on line up to one year ago

https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC) A recommended google search is "site:uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com" + whatever you're searching for. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Amazing stuff, should be useful. — Bilorv (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. If only there were a "download all" :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
wget -r -w 1 http://uscf1-nyc1.aodhosting.com/CL-AND-CR-ALL/ Quale (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Will have to look for a Windows-friendly wget. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to merge List of World Chess Championships into World Chess Championship

I have proposed to merge List of World Chess Championships into World Chess Championship. Discussion is at Talk:World Chess Championship. I have only had one responder (in favour), but would like a little more feedback before doing any merge. Adpete (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please Help me Find Facts for Draft:Machine (chess)

I really couldn't find enough information to add to the draft (the link above). Can you please help me? Zikrsaloncom (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

ChessBrower Extension question

Hi all.

So, as you may know, there is an active proposed extension which will allow inclusion of interactive chess games viewer in chess articles, such as is active on hewiki and ruwiki. adding it to enwiki was proposed several times on enwiki, even "accepted", but not implemented for technical reasons, with the main argument being "this should be an extension", so it's fair to assume this community should be interested in the project.

A recent change was made, which removes some of the buttons from the viewer, among them the "autoplay" (the others were speed control). The question I'd like to ask this community, is how useful, is autoplay? and btw, how useful is "flip board" in interactive game viewers?

The extension is written mainly by User:Wugapodes, who also happens to be an admin on enwiki, with others. it's meant to provide functionality like this site, for example, and is inspired by a gadget (written by myself), which is active on hewiki and ruwiki, in many chess related articles.

Please see Phab:T281649.

Peace.

I agree with your comments in the Phabricator ticket that the speed controls are not essential, but the play button is a key function for readers. As a non-chess player, the flip functionality isn't important to me, but perhaps it has instructional value for players? isaacl (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Flip function is very minor. Chess diagrams are traditionally shown with White at the bottom. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I was considering saying that given the traditional format, students of the game will be used to reading the diagrams this way. But given that web sites don't have the limitations of printed paper, I think it could be helpful to let the reader orient the board differently. In terms of allocating space in the UI, which was the concern in the ticket, my personal priority would be to have a play button. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Are these features causing bugs that are preventing this from being implemented? If not, is this holding up implementation? It seems to me that a discussion about design that doesn't have direct implications for implementation/bugs should be on-wiki rather than on phabricator.
I find that I never use the autoplay features when they're available to me, and always feel very minorly annoyed when it's turned on by default. But, there may be use cases when they're useful. For example, let's say we use this tool to play through, I don't know, the Sicilian Dragon just to illustrate the move order rather than to display an entire game. That seems like something that it would be useful to autoplay for, off on the side, displayed as though it were a looping animation. Of course, that implies that there's a looping feature, which now that I think about it would be strange for a chess game viewer.
I do, however, often use a flip sides button. Some games are intended to be instructive for black, or illustrate black's side of an opening, and I always flip it in those cases. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

i do not frequent chess sites, and have questions for those who do, and use interactive gameplay: regardless of whether it's useful or not, what controls are common? as far as i saw, goto start, goto end, next, previous and autoplay are ubiquitous. i think more than half the sites i happened to stumble upon also have "flip". can't recall seeing speed control - i did this one per request/suggestion of a reader on hewiki. in the standalone, there's one more button (i don't think i saw this one either): show/hide comments, when notation contains embedded comments. when weighing usefulness, please remember that this is meant not just for wikipedia, but any wiki that may want this functionality, e.g. wikibooks, wikiversity, and non-wikimedia wikis.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these functionalities are useful but none are essential, and I would not support any additional functionality if it holds up the implementation. We just need a minimum viable product rolled out. And from the flip side, there's no point with devs working on features if we can never actually get the thing implemented (unless they think it's worth doing it for ruwiki/hewiki/anywhere else that will have it). — Bilorv (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
From what I understand from the ticket, the discussed functionality was implemented already, and some of it was removed in order to make the user interface more compact, which would make it easier to use on touch devices. So any choice here won't affect when the extension can get tested and approved for deployment. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, adding to what I wrote above. From a design perspective, using the demo as reference, here's my take: autoplay/faster/slower are entirely optional. The time that people want to look at a move varies significantly between moves, and it's just much easier to do that by clicking/tapping. I feel pretty strongly about flip sides being important, but maybe I'm in the minority. One likely issue if people try to import PGN games is that this doesn't seem to support comments. I tried both formats (with a semicolon and with curly brackets) and both return a Lua error. Long term this would be very useful. It does allow !/!!/?/??/!?/?! as well as various other characters tacked onto the end of moves -- not that that's common or something to worry about. The other big thing is that the box is a big thing. It would be nice to either shrink the notation and place it underneath or include a parameter that just doesn't display it. I think having both side-by-side limits its use in some scenarios where you might want to have the game off to the side like a thumbnail rather than a centerpiece of an article. All of this said, I agree that something is better than nothing and perhaps we can revisit this stuff after it's implemented. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that being able to move forwards and backwards one move at a time is the most important function, and would not support replacing it with only the play feature. However I think there are readers with only a casual interest in chess who would like to have a lean-back experience and just watch the game unfold, or more avid chess fans who wouldn't mind letting the game play until they pause it at a key moment of interest. I do agree that this decision oughtn't hold up further testing and deployment. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
regarding comments: the "prototype" demo page does not support comments, b/c it uses a lua-based "scaffolding" i wrote just for the demo, to simulate the php based part of the extension, in order to test and demonstrate the "thin" viewer. i took several shortcuts on the scaffolding, and to make life easier i skipped on parsing comments. the real thing (both standalone and the extension) do support comments. the standalone demo can be seen here: he:משתמש:קיפודנחש/ארגח_1). unfortunately, currently there is no public accessible demo page for the extension. for the standalone, please note two things: (1) there's and additional CC button, which only appears when the notation actually contains comments, and allows hiding and exposing them. (2) on mobile devices (or rather, when the "minerva" skin is used), the speed control and flip buttons are removed, to streamline the UI.
as mentioned, this is not about "adding functionality", but rather, "should this existing functionality be removed". peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
a while ago, this extension was enabled on the beta site, and we can view it there. the beta site does not participate in the "common log in", and a separate account is needed, but it still allows anonymous edits. see this demo on the beta site. קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Rating chart possibility

German and Russian wikipedias have a very useful tool to be able to display rating graphs on wikipedia. de:Vorlage:WikidataChart

Anyone know if such a thing could be introduced to the English Wikipedia? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Some articles on chess openings include links to online databases in the External links section. Many of these links are dead, requiring us to make a decision: Should we delete them or replace them with a different database? Personally, I do not find these links very helpful as I prefer to input the opening moves into a database that I know and love. Most online databases also require a paid subscription for anything but the very basic features—Lichess being a noteworthy exception—which goes against the spirit of WP:ELREG. —Dexxor (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I share your concerns. I think you can go ahead and delete these. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree. I think you can remove those without remorse. Quale (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

interpretation of infobox data

I added two new sections about issues of interpretation of the infobox data ("country", and "[peak]ranking") at Template talk:Infobox chess biography; I'd appreciate your input on those. Joriki (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out an issue with determining peak rankings that I was unaware of, and for demonstrating that it causes problems for Wikipedia and is not merely a theoretical issue. I encourage anyone who is interested in these questions to discuss at the template talk pages you link, especially if they have ideas how to resolve the inconsistent rankings FIDE provides. Quale (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Bassem Amin

The article on Bassem Amin is in pretty bad shape. It's had a {{prose}} notice since April 2019. Does anyone feel like cleaning it up? Joriki (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need multiple diagrams in our opening articles?

A whole lot of diagrams were recently added to the Ruy Lopez and Italian Game articles, including some for unimportant lines like 3.Bc4 h6. Looks over the top to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Obviously excessive. I've reverted. Cobblet (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Some are excessive, some are required. A big part of the problem is the text requires considerable expansion on the Italian Game article. OR maybe a merging of some of the transposition that occur. Quite a contrast between lots of content in the Ruy Lopez and the Italian Game which has many spin off articles. Sun Creator(talk) 08:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The Italian Game article doesn't mention any fifth moves after 4. c3 Nf6, so it doesn't mention 5. d3, and it doesn't mention any of the old lines after 5. d4. I wonder if there are reliable sources for this. Since Wikipedia came into being, 5. d3 has become very popular.
The Fritz and Ulvestad variations are covered better in Two Knights Defense, so when we mention them in Italian Game we should use Wikilinks. The coverage in Two Knights Defense should mention Estrin-Berliner (or should cite a source for that).
It appears that in the Two Knights, after 4. d3, Black has started playing 4. ... h6, with aggressive intentions (e.g. ... g5). This is just within the last year or two, so perhaps not ready for the encyclopedia. Amazing! Bruce leverett (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Giuoco Piano covers the lines after 4.c3 Nf6. Hatnotes could be added to make it more clear that there's more material in related articles. Cobblet (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I found an early example of 4...h6 and ...g5 from 1987, but yes it seems 4...h6 has become more popular lately. Snobby 19th Century London players would call it a "country move", but preventing both Ng5 and Bg5 seems useful, even if playing it on move 3 is taking things a bit far. Caruana plays 4...h6 quite regularly, without ...g5. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Vampire Gambit

Hello I've done some digging and found no mention thus far of the Vampire Gambit on Wikipedia.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqV-dq64Cg0 I'm not an expert on Chess as I have only played seriously for about a year, and I just made a Wiki account after noticing the Gambit mentioned prior, so I suspect I'm misinformed. Perhaps the Vampire Gambit has another, more common name that I do not know, or I'm simply lacking Wikipedia search experience.PurpleBeans13 (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)PurpleBeans13

Hi, @PurpleBeans13:, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will become a regular! I looked at GothamChess's video, and what he's calling a "Vampire Gambit" ( 1.c4 e5 2.f4 ) has been previously called an "English Opening: Double Whammy Variation" (including in Chess.com's opening database). I also see that since then it gets mentioned on a number of on-line forums since then as the "Vampire Gambit" but not by any reliable sources. Chess.com only has one game in it's database, and Chesstempo, only two. As it is a variation of the English Opening, it would naturally belong in that article, but it is not, under any name. However, seeing as it's so rarely played, I'm not sure adding it to the article is warranted. This is, of course, a subjective decision, and others may disagree, including you : ) SaltySaltyTears (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Chess endgame, three knights

At chess endgame an editor is taking out the checkmate with three knights, saying that it isn't basic. I think it is basic, since it is the minimum number of knights that can force checkmate. It is mentioned as an "elementary mate" in Basic Chess Endings and some other books. What do you think? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Was it cited before? (I took a quick look in page history but didn't see a cite.) If cited to BCE, I think it can stay. Quale (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It is in BCE. It wasn't cited there. The second edition just mentions it. IIRC, the first edition has more details, e.g. the maximum number of moves to checkmate. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It is cited here: Two_knights_endgame#Three_knights. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't seem "basic" in the sense that I have understood basic endgames, which is mates with the pieces that you start the game with. How often does one have three knights? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This seems little more than a novelty. Has such a situation ever occurred in any documented game, master or otherwise? Just because a respected reference mentions it does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia... contrary to popular assumption, we are allowed to use some judgement here. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes to Stalemate

Would someone examine recent changes to Stalemate? I think an editor is being too picky. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What an annoying editor. Should we just delete the whole section as OR? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The section in question is Stalemate#Effect on endgame theory. It is a subsection of Stalemate#Proposed rule change. The rule change is the often-proposed change to make stalemate a win for the stalemating side.
The subsection cites reference works that are not addressing the proposed change, but are simply describing various stalemate positions. So, in effect, the whole subsection is "verification failure", or ultimately, just OR.
I would have to thank the "annoying editor" for bringing this problem to our attention.
The larger section cites some old articles and summarizes them, which at least is more in line with what Wikipedia expects. It seems odd to be citing such old articles when one can find scads of newer articles by searching for "chess stalemate win" in Google, but that's another issue. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The proposed rule change for stalemate would have implications... Bubba73 You talkin' to me?

Two knights endgame

At Two knights endgame an editor is disputing the fact that in general, two knights can't force checkmate. He is removing reliable sources that say that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's quite false. I'm disputing the fact that checkmate positions with king and two knights versus king cannot be forced (which is completely different). I've provided two examples of such positions with accompanying forced mate to illustrate on the talk page. I have removed no sources merely changed @Bubba73's misstatement of Seirawan's text in the first diagram to what Seirawan actually says. I have no problem at all with the fact that two knights and a king cannot force checkmate against a lone king. This is already stated several times in the text and I haven't revised those (correct) statements. --Martin Rattigan (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Cannon shogi deletion

Cannon shogi has been proposed for deletion. SpinningSpark 12:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As WP:ATD I think the page should redirect to Shogi_variant#Standard-size_variants. Can't find enough reliable sources to keep the article though, unless Chinese sources exist. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I was just making the project aware of this rather than asking for any particular action. But if you want any outcome other than deletion then you need to remove the prod notice from the article now. There won't be any discussion, the page will just be deleted when the seven days are up. SpinningSpark 13:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do that. If another editor disagrees they can revert and take it to AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Link to www.chessvariants.org is not work. We should change these links to www.chessvariants.com .Sharouser (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Give 1.g4 a question mark?

Please review Grob's Attack. I agree completely that 1.g4 is a terrible move, probably the worst possible opening move by White, yet I still question the propriety of giving it a "?" right at the beginning of a wikipedia article. Do any standard opening books give it such a mark? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate. Strikes me as editorializing. Do we do this on the other offbeat opening articles? Irregular does not always mean bad. IMs such as Michael Basman have won with it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's a reliable source (ideally multiple) that gives it that designation, it should be removed as WP:OR. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like a simple case of applying WP:BRD given it was a WP:BOLD edit that is now deemed contentious. MaxBrowne2’s attempt to discuss the edit in the user take page of the editor who made was courteous and admirable, but the last response received seemed to be a tiny bit WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. WP:CONSENSUS still seems trump unilateral claims of WP:IAR, and article talk page discussion should determine whether the “?” is warranted since it’s not a matter if it being added based on an application of some major policy or guideline. I’m not a member of WP:CHESS and still had this page on my watchlist from a prior discussion, but that’s the way I would suggest this being resolved in a Wikipedia sense. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The website "chesscenter" is now an online shop; we have hundreds of links to be removed. Take care. --95.232.3.138 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

99% of those are probably links to Mark Crowther's "The Week in Chess", which is now at theweekinchess.com, apparently since 2012! They need to be updated, not removed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
We should create a template that links to TWIC. This would also help if the pages move again in the future. We have something like that with {{FIDE}}, but it generates something suitable for an external link. For TWIC we would want to generate a reference. Quale (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I created {{The Week in Chess}} but it would be much easier to replace all instances of http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic with https://theweekinchess.com/html/twic using AWB. Other replacements are also possible, for example:
To find these, you can search for the dead URL on archive.org, copy a sentence from the archived page, and search for the sentence using Google by putting it inside double quotes ("). Then we can ask an admin to mark chesscenter.com as dead so that the InternetArchiveBot can take care of the rest. —Dexxor (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dexxor, {{The Week in Chess}} is nice. I didn't mean that I thought you needed to create the template but I'm glad you did—I couldn't have done it as well. I gave it a test drive on 1998 in chess and I think it looks good. Quale (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I also wanted to mention that a fair number of the dead chesscenter links are on talk and user pages. Don't care about them. Quale (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
A few years ago I asked somewhere (I forget where) for help with a bot to fix all the TWIC links, and no one helped. Anyway, if someone else manages to be more persuasive than me, definitely get it done. Adpete (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I made a URL change request and EpicPupper was kind enough to batch-replace all links ending in /twicXXX.html. —Dexxor (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Chess terms in other languages

Would a page showing chess terms on various languages be useful? A table with English terms on top and then translated into various languages? Lankyant (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen the one in Chess piece? Bruce leverett (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ahhhh thank you :) Lankyant (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Chess.com member profiles

@Zyxw: What is the idea of adding links to chess.com member profiles to biographical articles about players?

Some players have both a player profile and a member profile, e.g. Judit Polgar and Fabiano Caruana. In these cases the player profile includes biographical information, so it would naturally be of interest to a reader of the Wikipedia biographical article, though it may fall short of being a reliable source. But the member profile is, as far as I can tell, of very little interest, from our point of view. It tends to have things like the player's recent completed games. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Articles that were already using {{Chess.com player}} were previously displaying the member page. I updated that template to display the player page and created {{Chess.com member}} to preserve any existing links to member pages. I also updated articles with both links so now they only display the player link. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Zyxw: Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Should we be linking to profiles on commercial sites? Are we going to start linking to ICC, chess24 and lichess profiles too? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Good question. People are always trying to add their favorite commercial sites to our lists of external links. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO when there's an independent secondary source which can verify someone's account, and that they do indeed use it, it could be worth including. I don't think we should be in the habit of including such accounts just because they exist, though. Also worth considering that different sites vary in the extent to which ownership is verifiable. There are an awful lot of fake accounts on chess.com, for example, so a secondary source would be useful for not just weight but also verifiability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The Judit Polgar profile at chess.com [10] is heavily based on her Wikipedia article (possibly the other way around, but I doubt it - the chess.com looks "Wikipedia-ish"). I am not sure if it is a direct copy of an old version, or a partial rewrite, but either way it is a very "circular source" so I don't think we should use it. The Fabiano Caruana profile at chess.com [11] looks a bit more independent, but still it is a just a recap of the results like his Wikipedia article, so I don't see what it adds. Of course, the same could be said for other external links, and the external links in other articles. In general I think external links should only be kept if they are official sites, or substantial background articles/interviews. So I would support removing those links, and probably a few others. Adpete (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

One also sees external links to chessgames.com, 365chess.com, and Twitch. I think the link to Twitch (from Fabiano Caruana) is just a bad idea. The "profiles" at chessgames.com and 365chess.com have biographical information, but are not good sources for the same reasons that User:Adpete has pointed out: they are circular references, and they are out of date. Both these profiles could be considered handy game collections; I don't know if that would be considered sufficient justification for linking to them. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The chessgames links are a wikipedia tradition, but maybe one we should be questioning. 15:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Chessgames seems to have been around from the early days, when it was of the only ways to access game collections for the players. Chess365 started appearing, and in some instances was more complete, so these are arguably OK (but a different discussion). Chess.com profile pages do not provide game collections (the member page gives games limited to its site only, which is a no for me), but a profile (in some cases circular as highlighted above). So I am against adding chess.com links of any sort to the player pages. Greenman (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure he doesn't mean any harm but I'm finding the multiple links added to bios by Zyxw rather alarming. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I stopped adding Chess.com links on 18 October, when this thread began. The links I have been adding are ones that I already see on many chess player pages: FIDE, Chessgames.com, 365Chess.com, and OlimpBase.org. For U.S. players, I also added a link to their page at the US Chess Federation. If believe those are all non-commercial sites, but if there is a list of acceptable external links for chess players, please let me know. -- Zyxw (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
We need to review against WP:EL and decide which are appropriate. FIDE should be ok, USCF maybe, chessgames maybe, but there shouldn't be links to 10 chess websites where they happen to have accounts. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Also, see WP:LINKFARM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Also I have just noticed that olimpbase.org, which is linked to from many players' articles, only has players' results up to 2014. So it should probably be removed from external links for anyone still active in 2016 or later. Adpete (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Chess scoring article

In response to a request I have seen a few times, I have created Chess scoring, to explain the various conventions used when giving a player's score in a tournament or match (7/12, 7-5, +6-4=2). I previewed linking to it from an article with lots of results in it (Alireza Firouzja), but it was so inconspicuous I didn't bother. So for now I have just linked to it from chess#Tournaments and matches. But it's there if anyone else wants to link to it from other articles. Adpete (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe put it in the chess glossary article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Perhaps I should just merge it into Glossary_of_chess#score, though my feeling is it is just a little bit too detailed for that. Adpete (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
The main Chess article includes all the substantive content from this article. Maybe just a redirect? I find it hard to see how an article is justified over something which is really just common sense. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
You'd think it'd be obvious, but I've seen it asked a few times on talk pages, most recently Talk:Alireza_Firouzja#For_lay_readers. Anyway, thinking more about it, perhaps Glossary of chess is the correct place, as it's a chess terminology thing. Adpete (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Specifying Chess Play Format and Elo Rating System

FIDE Chess maintain three formats, standard, rapid, blitz. In addition to this there are a variety of chess rating systems, the official Elo rating system as designed by Arpad Elo, some revised versions of that rating system (such as Glicko ratings), as well as FIDE recognised national ratings systems such as USCF and ECF. When discussing chess records and chess performances in Wikipedia articles it should be incumbent on the editors of those articles to avoid ambiguity and specify at least once which chess format and rating system is used or referred to in the article or section of the article. Assuming all Wikipedia readers know the conventions and norms around these playing formats and rating systems is presumptive and leads to ambiguity and lessens the informative quality of Wikipedia. Michuk (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by a "FIDE recognised national rating system"; FIDE doesn't recognize any national ratings or titles, only those it awards itself. There is no "official Elo rating system", only a FIDE rating system, based on Elo, and almost all national federations use a similar system. If Australia uses a K factor of 10 and US uses a K factor of 12, that doesn't mean they're fundamentally different systems.
Rapid and blitz ratings are lightly regarded compared to classical ratings. If you say someone has a rating of 2400, then you are referring to classical rating unless you specify "rapid" or "blitz".
It's fair enough to wikilink the term "Elo rating" early in a chess biogrpahical article, but it's pedantic and completely unnecessary to specify "Elo" every time a chess rating is referred to, as you insist on doing in the Alireza Firouzja and Magnus Carlsen articles. There is no "ambiguity". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Michuk: for bringing this discussion here, where it is more likely to get attention from knowledgable editors, than on your own talk page.
In the United States, it is not unusual, when stating someone's rating, to qualify it by stating who computed it. For instance, "my FIDE rating is XXXX, my USCF rating is YYYY." No one says, "his rating is ZZZZ Elo", except people who have recently come here from Europe. The USCF and FIDE rating formulas, while different from each other, are both based on Elo's original formulas, along with whatever tinkering with them has been done in the past 50-60 years. Back in 1960, when the US switched from using the Harkness rating system to a system based on Elo, I suppose people may have said "his rating is ZZZZ Elo"; I don't know, that was a few years before my time.
Not all of our chess biography articles mention ratings at all. But, for example, ratings are all over Alireza Firouzja because he has just set a rating record. So it is reasonable to suppose that some readers of that article will be mystified by the discussion of ratings. Where do ratings come from? How are they calculated? Can they go both up and down? Is high good and low bad, or vice versa? The classic Wikipedia way of helping such readers is to provide a Wikilink to an article about ratings. Elo rating system is OK for this, although sometimes Chess rating system might be appropriate. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6‎

Ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6‎. Bruce leverett (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Christian Seel

Christian Seel seems to wear lots of hats, but the primary claim for his Wikipedia notability seems to be based on his accomplishments as a chess player. I'm wondering if someone more familiar with chess player biographies could take a look at it and assess it per WP:NCHESS. There's lots of unsourced content and the two sources which are provided don't have anything to do with his chess achievements at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Offhand it doesn't look like he meets WP:NCHESS as he's not a grandmaster nor has he won any of the applicable awards. Doubt he meets notability guidelines, but I don't have the time to do a proper WP:BEFORE right now. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's one of the stronger IMs and has maintained a 2400+ rating for the last 17 years, briefly hitting 2500 in 2006. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
There is an article in German Wikipedia about him, which was created in 2007 and has survived since then. The article in English Wikipedia seems to have been created by translating the German article, in 2018.
Neither the English nor the German article has any conventional sources for the list of his chess accomplishments; one of the two entries in the list of references is for Shogi, and the other is a database entry.
This article [12] is interesting. He is interviewed, in the German chess press, because his Bundesliga team was promoted to the top level of that league, where his opponents would be the likes of Anand, Caruana, Mamedyarov, etc. I am sure that his name would be known to many, or most, German chess players, just because of that. (The article is from 2020.)
Other interesting things that I found via Google are links to an article he wrote during the pandemic about the productivity of working at home (this would be connected to his non-chess job, as a professor of economics), and a monograph he wrote about a chess opening (a variation of the Philidor).
All these things together don't add up to much notability; I think he is borderline; I had never heard of him myself, for instance. But I wouldn't rely on my own judgment for this. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. As I originally posted, Seel's primary claim of Wikipedia notability seems to be as a chess player, but perhaps his accomplishments as an author and academic also help establish his notability as well. His shogi accomplishments aren't really anything which I would consider to be helpful in establishing Wikipedia notability, but there are lots of strong international chess players who also play shogi; so, mentioning such things seems fine (though the sources aren't very strong). I'm happy to defer to the those more familiar with chess player biographies on this, but the fact that is a German Wikipedia about him doesn't necessarily make him automatically Engiish Wikipedia notable per WP:OTHERLANGS since different WikiProjects can have slightly different policies and guidelines and most are not as rigorous in applying them as is done here on English Wikipedia. Maybe there are some non-English sources that can be used to not only better establish his notability, but also because there's still wads of unsourced content to deal with? The interview given above might have potential, but interviews tend to be seen as WP:PRIMARY sources per WP:INTERVIEW. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see notability either as a chess player or an an academic. Also the article is in very poor shape. Adpete (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Qwaiiplayer, MaxBrowne2, Bruce leverett, and Adpete: If this is a borderline case that people feel should be kept, then that's OK. However, pretty much all of the content related to his chess achievements and about being a university professor was removed earlier today from the article for lacking proper sources, which basically leaves only the content about shogi. Those accomplishments aren't really anything close to what would be needed to establish notaility on their own, and I can't see how at least an AfD can be avoided if there's no way to better source his chess accomplishments and career as a writer and academic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
It might be possible to find proper sources for academic and chess material that was removed, but I am not motivated to do so, as he still would be borderline. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
None of the regular WP:CHESS people have made any substantive edits to the article arnd are unlikely to have any emotional investment in it or motivation to fix it. The article's creator User:Michael james campbell is the only one who's made any more than minor edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
If it were taken to AfD, I'd be for deletion. I'm not seeing anything supporting Christian Steel meeting notability guidelines (WP:GNG or WP:BASIC). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Levon Altounian

Just out of curiosity, would Levon Altounian qualify for a Wikipedia article? Nehme1499 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, but he would need some notability outside of being an International Master. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Doesn't qualify under our unofficial WP:NCHESS guideline, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there about him. California state champion a few times [13], has done some coaching, but so have a lot of other players. Would struggle to meet WP:GNG in my view. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
California is larger than most countries so California state champion is a notable feat. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
He was actually Southern California champion. Southern Cal and Northern Cal have held separate championships for many years and are treated as two different states by the US Chess Federation.
The Los Angeles Times certainly is (and was) a reliable source from our point of view. Back then, it had a regular chess column by John Peters. (Los Angeles is the 3rd largest city in the U.S., in case anyone was wondering.) Coverage of the Southern Cal state championship by that newspaper counts toward notability. I have not looked around for any other coverage, as I am temporarily living on borrowed computer power. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, if anyone wants to create the article they can feel free to do so. I was doing some research about the homonymous Lebanese footballer, and stumbled into the chess guy. Nehme1499 16:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help

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

I’m right, they’re wrong. Please go tell them that. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a poor approach to dispute resolution. And it's he, not they. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean, “not they”? “They” can be anyone. I didn’t know you were a guy, simple as that. What a strange part of my comment to fixate on. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Two things. First, the right way to do this is "this discussion could use some additional opinions". Telling people to weigh in on your side is more or less WP:CANVASSing.
According to Stockfish at a depth of 22, Rxb2 is the fourth candidate move which results in a +1.1 score (the same as the second and third candidates). The best move, exd4, results in a +0.8 score. An inaccuracy, yes, and maybe even a mistake, but not a blunder. On the other hand, black's dxe5 is a blunder. The best move per Stockfish was Ng6 there, resulting in +1.3. dxe5 resulted in +8.5. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I was extremely tired and my emotions were running very high. I really need a better sleep schedule. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
10...Rxb2 is definitely inferior to 10...exd4 and can be considered a mistake. I have rewritten the diagram caption to avoid the evidently confusing wording "O'Kelly blundered with 10...Rxb2? 11.dxe5 dxe5??". We shouldn't rely on the reader understanding the difference between "?" and "??" to rescue poor phrasing. Cobblet (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Seel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is related to the above discussion at #Christian Seel. Since WP:CHESS doesn't appear to have a dedicated WP:DELSORT template, I've added a "Please see" notification to this talk page instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_37&oldid=1116882529"