Talk:Amber chess tournament

Prize money[edit]

Is anything known about how much prize money there is and how it is distributed? Is there an appearance fee? 84.189.81.81 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the years that I was there prizes were high, but each participant got something. I suppose it is still so. Van Oosterom can afford it. :-) Guido den Broeder 08:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their website http://www.amberchess2008.com says the total prize fund is 216,000 Euro. Still the distribution seems to be secret. If the players receive an appearance fee is unknown as well. Anybody has inside informations? --84.189.102.26 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but inside information will remain just that. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books[edit]

is there any particular reason why Guido den Broeder is adding his own books to the list? With the use of google I noticed that the Magnana Mu publishing is his own company. That's weird. LucianoHdk 10:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that these are the official tournament books (not all by me, btw). Mentioning them is therefore mandatory rather than 'promotion'. You may wish to check the Wikipedia:Help_desk where these matters are being discussed on a regular basis, e.g.:

Sources that are relevant are desired. Whether or not they are related to the person referencing is irrelevant. (The Rhymesmith, 26 July 2007).

If it still bothers you, you can always remove these references and then put them back yourself. That way, they have been added by you.

Regards, Guido den Broeder 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were removed by JacobH (a sysop on the Dutch Wikipedia). There is a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia whether it is appropriate to add references to your own publications. Although it's not prohibited to cite oneself, the overall opinion is (on the Dutch Wikipedia) there is (at least) a conflict of interest.

I don't know if the tournement books of Guido den Broeder are relevant enough to be mentioned here (I'm not an expert in chess)...

Puck (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Puck. It seems to me that a Dutch admin has no jurisdiction here. This removal is a clear violation of the rules on en:Wikipedia, see the reference to the Help Desk above. Users from another language version would do well to first acquaint themselves with the prevailing ruleset, rather than create a single-purpose account to infect en:Wikipedia with a conflict that they nourish on their language version. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include a partial list. Either all the books should be mentioned or they shouldn´t be included at all. I haven't seen these books so I cannot evaluate their importance. Are these books still published or was the series interrupted at some point? --Jisis (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jisis, the sixth book (by Nunn and Kohlmeyer) was the last one. Btw if you see the name of grandmaster John Nunn as an author, quality is assured. He is one of the most outstanding chess authors of all time, it was a great honour and pleasure to work with him. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I found one more (7th) book by the same authors.[1] If there is no more discussion, I will add that one and your books later today. Yes, John Nunn doesn't need to be introduced.--Jisis (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cool! I never saw this book discussed in a magazine and didn't receive a copy. Makes you wonder, perhaps there are even more. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information: NL.wiki arbcom has taken severe measures against Guido den Broeder for self promotion. We have invented the unimportance of his work. Please don't help him. GijsvdL (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invented, indeed. There are presently 3 Arbcom cases on nl:Wikipedia against JacobH & friends for copyright violation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I leave the edit war to others. By the way, Guido den Broeder added different authors for his last tournament book [2] than I did[3]. I used WorldCat and Google ISBN 90-5518-106-4 search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jisis (talk • contribs) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the book. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no argument is made as to why the deleted sources are irrelevant while the others are, I will reinsert them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know the arguments, we're not going to repeat them every hour, if you don't hear anything for a few hours, that's not permission for re-adding your shameless self promotion. GijsvdL (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COS: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Guido has been blocked at NL at the moment. GijsvdL (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's being handled. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido den Broeder has been blocked for two weeks this time, he's under strict supervision of a "mentor". Here's his track record of blocks on the Dutch wikipedia ; most due to selfpromoting activities. JacobH (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, but completely irrelevant: I do not have a mentor. Oscar claiming that he is my mentor does not make it so, there are laws that even Wikipedia has to obey. The block of two weeks is for archiving(!). This guy Oscar insists that I am only allowed to archive on the last day of the month. No such rule exists on nl:Wikipedia. For more information, contact the Arbcom. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me check what the official books are, and if these are the official books, I will add them back in. I hope that will resolve this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I can't find anything definitive, but if these books definitely exist (and I see no reason to doubt this), then I see no problem adding them to the article. As a reader of this article, I would want to know about them, and I would want to go and find the books as a way of following up on reading the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did an ISBN search for these books and I believe that they do exist. The only difference is that I found different authors for the "Fifth amber" book as I said earlier. But then I did a google search and found this [4] so I suppose John Nunn was involved with it as Guido den Broeder stated. Somehow the whole issue seems absurd to me and I don't see why the books couldn't be included even if GdB has problems with the Dutch Wikipedia community. Moreover, even if the books would be "unimportant", they are not reviewed here but listed as a fact. --Jisis (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stating at the bottom of the articles that these books exists is not "citing yourself" as some above seem to think. If the page can be unprotected, I am perfectly willing, as an up-until-now uninvolved editor to add the list of books to the bottom of the article. It is silly to have only some of the books there and not all of them. If there has been a book on each tournament, we should list them all. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This looks like spam to me. Many events of various types have "official books" - they are not individually listed; there are usually not even mentioned. Using the books to reference specific facts is fine, but simply listing them for no purpose is highly dubious. In terms of policy, I think this should be covered by our external links policy despite them being different media. Imagine that instead of seven "offical books" there were seven "official websites" listed in an External Links section - what do we imagine the reaction would be? CIreland (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's delete all the 10 linked websites and 4 books on Arsenal F.C. forthwith. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be spam if there is only one book for each tournament? Is not like there are fifty different books on each of the seven tournaments. Anyway, by your argument, the other three should go as well. All or none. I agree. No need to single out Guido den Broeder because he has raised hackles at the Dutch Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the World Chess Championships, which are covered in great detail, these are specialist books. See here for an example of the first one, which is now a rare chess book, selling on antique book websites. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, I meant to imply that none should be listed and did not wish to single out one author's books for removal. If we keep them, what will this page look like in 2028? Shall we have a list of 27 books? Wikipedia is not a repository of external links and nor is it a book catalogue. CIreland (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far there are 17 tournaments and 7 books AFAIK. I would be much more worried about what will the page look if only the participants are mechanically listed year after year. But at least there´s concensus. It's better to remove all the books than select just some of them. Personally I would keep them. --Jisis (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add here that the books are published by "Magnana". Which is in fact Guido den Broeder's own firm, which only publishes the works of Guido den Broeder. JacobH (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above information is incorrect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your company has also published other works? Where can I find the list of publications of your company? JacobH (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the basic misunderstanding here is that self-published works shouldn't be used as references, but the books are not being used as references for the information in the article. Think of it this way, if you added to the article the line "seven of the tournaments have had books published about them", this is a useful bit of information for the reader. If, furthermore, you say one of them (the book about the first tournament) is a rare collectors item, that is even more useful. The point is that this is all useful information for the reader (who may want to read a book about the tournaments), so it should be included. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's no small feat that seven books have been written on a rapid chess event. --Jisis (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly. There are a fair number of potboilers in the chess publishing pantheon, but whether any of these books are dashed off to try and get a quick buck (as some of the books about the world chess championships are), I couldn't say without looking. That is part of the judgment needed, but Wikipedia shouldn't go too far in that regard. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that, too, is a misunderstanding. There is no difference between self-published works and other works at all, except that in some cases it may be harder to actually confirm that the usual requirements for sources are met. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was being too general, yes. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two strikes is not an out Guido, three is.

Self written: strike 1

Self published: strike 2

Self referenced: strike 3

You'r out. Jorrit-H (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: In other words; if you and you alone are responsible for those three things the reference becomes too doubtfull imo, this given and your whole history + timeline of trying to get your name in a Wikipedia gives me a very clear picture of your motives. Jorrit-H (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Dutch Wikipedian? Look, I have no interest in the background struggle going on here. What I want to do is include all the useful information relevant to this article. That includes the basic details of these books (only some of which involve Guido den Broeder), and I haven't been given any reason why I (that's me, not Guido den Broeder) should not add the details of these books to this article. I had never heard of Guido den Broeder until I encountered this incident. But I had heard of the Melody Amber chess tournaments, and I do want others to have all the relevant information about the books on this tournament, without some battle being imported from the Dutch Wikipedia and disrupting this article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 ref is fine with me, but for every year? The problem is that this user made it imposible for me and others to trust his motives cause he added too much information about himself with ref's that sometimes made no sence (like referencing about four dates with each another book he (co)wrote, while a date is a given fact and nobody questioned those dates, later he claimed that it was copyrighted, the dates...). Sure maybe sometimes somewhere 1 or 2 references wouldn't hurt but by acting like a child (no PA intended, just my observation so you can get my point of view) pushing his name in such a rate and intensity and with a mind that was not open for reason only if that reason was in the range of his point of view he made it imposible for me and a lot of other people to trust him. Jorrit-H (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If John Nunn and John van der Wiel are co-authors, these books should be reliable. Please don't confuse the content with the contributor. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion seems to have died out. I waited a bit and then made this change. Please discuss here if you disagree with this or want to try something different. Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would go against the guidelines on referencing, as well as violate attribution rights. I.e., we would still need to add the full references. Therefore, I'd prefer using the books to add some more information to the article, as I have just done for the 1992 tournament. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between describing the book in a section called "Tournament books" and using the books as references for the article. The former appears in Melody Amber chess tournament#Tournament books. The latter appears in Melody Amber chess tournament#References (either directly or using inline citations). I'm OK with the former, but I personally would not do the latter until I can get hold of copies of the books myself and cross-check the information in them with other sources. ie. Not until someone (other than you) verifies that they are reliable sources. This is the difference between stating that the books exist (what I'm doing), and using them to write parts of the article (what you want to do). Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that you have already verified their reliability, by pointing out that the authors are reliable. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I met John Nunn once. But, no offence, he is only one author of the books. I could ask you how the writing of the books was divided between you, but that would probably not really help here. What I am interested in is how many books have been written on this tournament and what other sources there are about it. I can only think of the chess news magazines and websites, and the official tournament website, and these books. Any other resources or things published about this tournament? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One book on each of the first seven tournaments. At the time, there was no website, but the results were displayed on Teletext. Finally, there are discussions of the books themselves, usually by the same journalists that had attended the event, as they all received a free copy.

As for the division of labour, e.g. in the 1996 book, John Nunn analysed 74 games, and I did 50 plus most of the additional work. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any reason why there were no books after 1998? Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I was no longer involved. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to including Guido den Broeder's self-published books. As Jorrit stated, he wrote them himself, he published them himself, and he added them himself. That's really too much. JacobH (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob, the latest addition of the books was done by me in a different form, as I (someone who had never heard of Guido den Broeder before) felt that this is a useful bit of information for the article. As you can see, I have emphasised the co-authorship of some of the books by chess grandmasters, and I have not given the ISBNs of the books. Could you give your opinion on this new edit, please. Please note also that I have said to Guido den Broeder above that he should not use his books to add material about the tournament until we are sure the books are reliable. There is a difference between stating the books exist (this is verifiable), and using them to add information to the article (are the books a reliable source?). The COI possibilities mean that I would want to see the books myself, and cross-check with other sources first. Does this satisfy you? Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: If you truly plan to find and read the books, I'm willing to wait. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this discussion the more absurd it seems. Personally I don't care if a person has tried to sell his mother in Dutch Wikipedia (No offence intended, Dutch Wikipedians). Anyhow, if GdB is willing to add valuable information to the article citing his co-written books (like he has done on Amber tournament in 1992 without citing himself) I will cross-check this information. I have access to a web archive of a finnish magazine (Helsingin sanomat), in which there is information on these events. It is not as comprehensive as those books probably are, but since GdB only stated the facts in his contribution on the tournament in 1992, I will be able to cross-check at least some of it. --Jisis (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree completely, and hopefully the Dutch Wikipedians who are concerned about Guido den Broeder will trust the processes and editors over here to sort things out. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful to both of you, and will go ahead then. The information I'd like to add is the same as is already in the nl:Wikipedia article, uncontested. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I removed the external link to

http://www.amberchess.com/ (16th Amber Blindfold and Rapid Chess Tournament 2007)

since it is no longer valid. The new link is:

http://www.amberchess2008.com/ (17th Amber Blindfold and Rapid Chess Tournament 2008)

CSchoenberger 13:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page title[edit]

The official name of the tournament is without 'Melody'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the official website, I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Do you have any pictures of chess players you would want to release under a free license? Joop van Oosterom for instance? Carcharoth (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright on the pictures in the books remained with the photographers that took them. I took some myself, that I could release; unfortunately, my scanner is no longer functional. Later perhaps. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the world top 10 are still quite a rare commodity here on wikipedia, so if you were able to upload some free-use images in due course, they would be much appreciated across the whole wiki-community. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections to move the article to Amber Rapid and Blindfold Chess Tournament? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support that move, although we may want to lower case Chess Tournament. (Not sure in this case, but see Category:chess competitions.) Quale (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As it's the official full name for the event, I tend to think upper case would be OK throughout. There do seem to be inconsistencies elsewhere in the category though - for example the 'Corus Chess' articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]