|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
François-André Danican Philidor is within the scope of the Composers WikiProject, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome! |
|
Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
Start |
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of editions [edit]
A sentence under "chess career" reads ... it went through about 70 editions and was such an advance in chess knowledge that it went through 100 editions .... One of these numbers of editions needs to be deleted, but I don't know which one. Bubba73 (talk), 03:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- It has been fixed. Thanks Fred. Bubba73 (talk), 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Simultaneous blindfold games [edit]
'three simultaneous blindfold games is another matter' - WP itself details that the record for simultaneous blindfold is 34 games, with a number of people having unofficially performed more than that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindfold_chess). To suggest that 3 is still remarkable is misleading.Neduardo (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Someone got off on the wrong foot here. --72.70.21.6 (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
-
- It was remarkable in 1783, but still it needs rewording Peter Ballard (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources [edit]