Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CHESS)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Chess Portal

Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Jens Ove Fries-Nielsen[edit]

Would he qualify as notable enough for an English wikipedia article? He's an IM, did well at the 1977, 1978 and 1979 world junior championships, played in several Danish Championships (best result 2nd in 1982), played for Denmark in a few olympiads. He just came to my attention after his recent upset win over Jan Timman in the Politiken cup (as I write he shares the lead with 4/4). Peak rating is about 2450 which is average IM, but he may qualify as notable for being one of the strongest Danish players during the 70s-90s. Polish wikipedia has an article, curiously Danish wikipedia doesn't. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, IMO. We are missing a number of Danish grandmasters (S. B. and L. B. Hansen, Lars Schandorff, Allan Rasmussen, Carsten Høi, Jens Kristiansen) with more notability than him (they've all won Danish championships at some point, for instance). Cobblet (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm arguing about Pokemon[edit]

Talk:Kasparov versus the World MaxBrowne (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon comes up occasionally here; search for it in the archives using the search box above for some entertaining examples. I was one of the offenders bringing it into the conversation, but there have been a few others as well. One of my favorite things written by a critic of our chess coverage on Wikipedia was the claim that StarCraft™ has as much or more printed literature than chess. (I don't find that in the WT:CHESS archives, but I think it was in an WP:AFD discussion.) Quale (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Tabulation of wins in major recurring tournaments[edit]

Is it necessary for it to be added to each player's page? These tournaments will surely have been put into the player's main articles, therefore the tables added to them seem superfluous. I've removed all but the link to the tabulation page from the Sergey Karjakin page, but want to see what general opinion is. Not knocking the idea, which makes sense and can be retained as its own article, but rather the clutter on a players page which could cause confusion. Jkmaskell (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of those tables, given that they often list tournaments a player could not have played in (because of his/her date of birth) and because there is no source showing whether the tournaments listed in those tables are "major". Toccata quarta (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There are inherent WP:OR and bias issues with determining which tournaments are major. The tables require research to aggregate results from multiple sources, and I am not confident that they do not have errors and omissions. There is also no easy way to verify them. The tabulations themselves aren't exactly synthesis of a novel conclusion, but there is an issue with WP:UNDUE since we shouldn't be inventing our own metrics to use to compare chess players. It would be somewhat similar if a baseball editor decided that baseball player articles should include a unique statistic that the editor computed because it is not found in any sources. Even if the numbers that went into the calculations were available in reliable sources and the calculation itself was simple, it would still not be permissible. Finally, I think the tables aren't very attractive and are a nuisance in the articles. I think that Jkmaskell is right and that noteworthy tournament wins should simply be reported in the body of the article. Quale (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Quale on everything. And these tables even add WC match wins to the running total?? Makes no sense at all. --SubSeven (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all previous comments. I have similar concerns about the table in Comparison of top chess players throughout history#World Champions by world title reigns. Cobblet (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't like this table either, for reasons discussed above. Designating some tournaments "major" is inherently subjective. Also not every tournament held as part of a recurring series is equally "major"; look at the history of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament and the Dortmund Sparkassen Chess Meeting and you'll see a number of second string GM's (and even a few non-GMs) among the winners. Also, supertournaments in earlier times tended to be one-off events, e.g. Bled 1931, Nottingham 1936, AVRO 1938 etc so this table also introduces a WP:RECENTISM bias. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've always been against these tabulated results. The 'Head-to-head against selected grandmasters' scores can also be very randomly, or subjectively selected, with the same problems for verifiability and accuracy. Does someone go around them all and update them every time a tournament is played? I think not. Check out Vladimir Kramnik, who now has nearly fifty head-to-head scores listed. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The head-to-head records are ridiculous to maintain and I think would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's just a pile of statistics with no rhyme or reason. --SubSeven (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the work that a few editors have invested in creating the head-to-head and major tournament wins tabulations, and occasionally they even update some of them to try to keep them slightly current. For that reason I didn't have the heart to try to remove them from articles. I didn't realize there were this many editors who share the same concerns about them, and I agree with all the issues mentioned so far including the serious recentism problem noted by Max. Head-to-head records were discussed previously at WT:WikiProject Chess/Archive 29#Head to Head records.
One small point is that sometimes selected head-to-head records can be found directly in our sources, and in that case they may be appropriate to include. For example, Geller's significant plus records against Fischer and other WCs is well known and often reported. Another example is that head-to-head records between WC contestants are often reported before the matches, and those can go in the article on the match if they can be reliably sourced. Reliably sourced does not mean hand tabulated by querying a database such as and counting the results—the source should directly state the cumulative score and we should have a publication date for the claim. (Most database queries simply can't be dated reliably. How can I verify what a query returned five years ago, or even five days ago? This is significantly different than disappearance of online sources, as in theory they can be archived at a particular version.) Quale (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Korchnoi's excellent record against Tal is also noteworthy. is very incomplete and games are added to it in a haphazard way. It is not really a reliable source for anything (I looked myself up there and discovered I was dead!), let alone players' head to head records. It's a convenient way to link to a chess game and a player profile, which is about all I use it for on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Ishi Press = spam?[edit]

Should citing Ishi Press reissues be treated as spam? For example the Paul Keres article includes several references to Ishi Press reissues of Keres' books. Ishi Press has reissued dozens of old chess books, but the connection to all round dodgy guy Sam Sloan is troubling. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that any occurrence that appears to be blatant advertising (e.g. singing the praises of the publisher, linking to their website, or replacing earlier edition references with Ishi Press equivalents) ought to be reverted. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the non-prolific citing of Ishi Press books. There will be many editors who only have access to the Ishi Press version, and so their numbered page citations will apply only to that specific volume - it is unlikely that page numbers would correspond with an earlier or original edition. Force majeure I think. Also, if you run a search on Ishi and/or Hardinge-Simpole (another of these resurrected title publishers) here on Wikipedia, you will see that there are already hundreds of instances of them being used in citations, so it would in any case be difficult to oppose this practice at this point. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox chess piece[edit]

Does this infobox have any use, anymore? It is up for deletion. —PC-XT+ 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Scoring half points[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Use of frac template about whether we should use 4½/6 or 412/6 for scoring.  Stepho  talk  04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

demo of showing games, playing them by a single keystroke from imported PGN[edit]

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.

The tool was offered to you by the developper, a very dedicated wikipedian, but maybe you did not look at all the options.

I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games.

--Yoavd (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

New, lousy article[edit]

Please take note of the following new, highly flawed article: List of highest tpr chess. It's full of unsourced statements, grammatical errors and violations of the MOS:. Besides that, it overlaps with some of the information found at List of world records in chess#Highest performance rating in a tournament, where some of it could be moved. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting stuff, but it seems to me like it is original synthesis. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Not keen on this article. Cant see it going very far. It can be put into an existing article. Jkmaskell (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's not bite the newbie. Frankly wikipedia treats new editors poorly, I hate the "curating" scheme with its drive by tagging. The guy obviously put some work into the article. Let it develop naturally, maybe at some point the material can be incorporated into another article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)