Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

Template:WPChess Navbar Skip to: Bottom of page

Chess historian Jose A. Fadul??

Can anyone verify this is a real chess historian? Has anyone got any of his books. I found one on Google books(scroll through the pages and see if you recognise any of it, like familiar pictures). I'm a little suspicious not having heard of the name before and more so having seen that intro on Google books. SunCreator (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• This is to confirm that Prof. Jose Arabe Fadul, Ph.D., is a chess historian as well as a psychotherapist who is exploring the use of chess in and for psychotherapy. I've seen his collections of different antique chess books as well as chess sets from many countries. Limsont (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A chess historian that uses wikipedia articles as a source of publishing? SunCreator (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See also User:FadulJoseA, User_talk:FadulJoseA and User_talk:Fadulj. Apparent related accounts. SunCreator (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He also claims that he is the author of this map, but it was lifted from other sources. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be. The issue prompted my revisting this topic. Did you check the Google books link that started this topic off. I am surprised it did not generate considerable dialogue, I can only image no one was interested enough to check it. SunCreator (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't check the Google books link until now. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the standard is for calling someone a "chess historian". Fadul has written a book, published by an obscure publisher, that mentions some pretty basic chess history that can be gleaned from any number of sources. Has he done any original research on chess history? Have respected chess writers taken notice of his work? I haven't seen any evidence of these. Certainly I don't think that having "collections of different antique chess books as well as chess sets from many countries" (as user Limsont asserts of Fadul) makes one a chess historian - and Limsont's observations are in any event original research. Krakatoa (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this map in A History of Chess? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Krakatoa (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Style issues

Per WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words, small whole numbers in text should usually be spelled out: one, two, three, ... nine. This also applies to ordinal numbers: first, second, third, ... So it is "first place", not "1st place". These can be abbreviated in a table or info box.

Cryptic things like "=1st 37 YUG-ch" should be written out. We can deciper that, but many readers can't. Wikipedia is not Twitter. Write out what you mean: "tied for first place in the 37th Yugoslov championship", and link to Yugoslav Chess Championship if it isn't already linked.

Don't start sentences with digits, e.g. "12. Qh4". Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For instance, this diff shows a good faith change where the editor apparantly did not know that "1st=" meant a tie. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 06:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year !!

I wish a great year 2010 to all members of the WikiProject Chess ! SyG (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(just to explain: it is already 1st January in France, where I am located...) SyG (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

FIDE ratings

I don't know if this was already discussed here however now that FIDE switched to 2 months rating lists, it seems that many players will have outdated ratings here. I wonder if there is any sense in keeping them, maybe we should just have the peak rating.  Dr. Loosmark  23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. Bubba73 and I made that suggestion on more than one occasion when there were only four ratings lists per year. On the other hand, somewhere I argued to keep every player with a peak rating over 2700 in the table of top rated players in methods for comparing top chess players throughout history. It was clear to others early on that this wasn't a good idea, but only later after the table grew really too large did I realize I was wrong. (The table was trimmed to the top 20 peak ratings.) Quale (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. I don't think it is very significant that a player's rating was 2473 one one list and then 2461 on the next list two months later. And there are hundreds of players with current ratings. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 06:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

problem editor

There is a problem editor editing Samuel Sevian. He is a new member of the project, but is causing problems with that article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of problems?  Dr. Loosmark  01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the article has many problems. Secondly, the article said things like "3 years ago" and "in February" without saying what year. I tagged them but the editor removed them. I put them back in recently. Also, I took out a sentence saying that he was going to be playing in some future tournament because WP is not a crystal ball. He put it back in and I took it out again. Please look at that article and its talk page. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 02:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And he has removed them again. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 02:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I think the editor is almost certainly a child. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I read through some of your dealings with him - you did well to keep your patience; he gets very aggressive and rude. As you say, probably a kid who enjoys playing the tough guy thanks to his online anonimity. It's a very borderline acceptable/unacceptable article with little notability and very badly written. As far as I can see, the only shred of justification for keeping it is Sevian's high Elo, the best for his age in the world - I checked at the FIDE site. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He is doing the exact same on fr:, and his French is even worse than his English. I nominated his page on Samuel for deletion there, and it is going towards the trash can. Oyp (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not a child, he is a 17-year-old Canadian. Now, the only remaining questions are why he behaves as if he were seven years younger, and how a Canadian's English and French can both be that bad. Not that I really care, of course. Oyp (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was judging by his behavior, which is childish. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 23:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, he removed the templates for grammar / notability / etc. and cleared the talk page. I am not sure why nobody has nominated the page for deletion yet. If someone cares to do something about it… Oyp (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston is an admin, he seems to be on top of it. A 17-year-old is still pretty much a child. He says that I am like his high school teacher... :-) Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 16:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(Indent) Nominated for deletion. SunCreator (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He is at it again, removing the warning messages, including "considered for deletion". Oyp (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So you guys are having a discussion behind my back to criticize me and call me a child... Seriously how low can you get. EdJohnston went you act arrogant and like you can do wat ever you want. Then yes your acting like how alot of high school teachers act. Alot of them lack proper social, so they use dictatorship. Do wat i want or punish you. And about me being rude? Are you kidding me, just because sweared like 1 or 2 time. Wat about how you guys are trolling the page that i made and calling me a child and insult my writing skills?. Also this issues is about me make an article that attract people that have way to much free time and then they put thing that make the article look bad. If people want help, like i sayed before i am fine whit that. But you do nothing... all you guys are doing is trying destroy this article.

Oyp don't added useless thing ther is o ready a citation by an International master that wrote an article about him is the LA times. And if you want more citation i recommend you look for them yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are listed as a member of this project, so its talk page is hardly behind your back. As far as your writing skills, do you want me to point out 10 errors in those two paragraphs? Or how about 20? Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First off if you guys know that am 17 that because of my chess.com profile. Now if you read carefully on that profile you see that i come form Canada, Quebec ( the only French province in Canada). You never thought to yourself ,maby his French? Ther is no spelling error but yes ther are grammar error but i never studied the English language. I learn how talk, and then i learn how to type on my own. I think that my English is actually very good for someone who thought it to himself. Also it not acting childish it being a dick. But it justified because you guys are just focus on sabotaging the only article i made. Now if the admit and the people on wikipedia would give advice, try improve the article ther wouldn't be problem. But all guys do is ask things that you can't get yourself.

Also it clear states in the new paper article that he was the first to achieve 2000 rating. Ther is no mention of the youngest USFC rating. Now yes he did achieve it true the USFC but why wouldn't that be important. You see NM title has very big reputation for the chess community in the USA. Nicholas Nip even went TV for accomplishment. Now wat i don't seem to understand is that betting the youngest expert wouldn't be a big deal but NM would?. I think that NM is more important but Expert is also very important. And yes it clearly states that ther talking about it as an all-time record and not the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I definitely did not think you were French. This is because I read what you wrote on the French language Wikipedia, and one really has to bend it hard to make it look like French, one reason being that every other word is English. By the way, since the delay is expired and all nine people who cared to participate voted delete, your article on fr: should be going to the trash can today. As for deletion on en:, I am not participating because the criteria may well be different. I understand that English speakers may care about a record relevant only in the USA; the rest of the world definitely does not. Oyp (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that GSP-Rush is a troll who is making grammar mistakes on purpose.  Dr. Loosmark  00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We have not tried to sabotage the article - we have suggested improvements. Take a look at other articles and see how they are written. Read the basic Wikipedia policies on style, references, etc. There is a good listing of them on your talk page. If you are 17 then you have probably had to write term papers. Eikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so the writing in its articles should at least be as good as a good high school term paper. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GSP-Rush, the guys at the Chess project are very helpful, knowledge and enthusiast - I'll working with several articles, although for the last time year or to I've worked on other topics. If the Samuel Sevian article can be saved, Chess project can help you to do it. Things that will greatly its prospects include:

• High-quality references, formatted in a standard layout. To understand "High-quality references", read WP:V - which is too important that everyone assumes that everyone knows its short name. Format looks complex, but there's a terrific tool called refTools which is really easy to use - see User:Philcha#Tools
• WP's guideline WP:N, another important that everyone assumes that everyone knows its short name. Usually competitors below the top class are included in WP. However, Samuel Sevian is so good at such a young age that there may be a especial case - if you follow advice the Chess project, and don't get aggressive. Look for sources that compare Samuel Sevian with other very young, very strong players, e.g. Samuel Reshevsky. Bobby Fischer looks less good so youngest, and soource on that may help. I suggest you read Child prodigy, which includes the Polgar sisters - the strongest of these gone into the top 10.
• Ask Chess project to check your English prose - there's no shame in that, in fact most editors find it difficult to fix their English prose, and trade favours with other editors. --Philcha (talk)

Chess arbiter

From Talk:International Arbiter (I got no answer) :

Hi there, I wrote an article corresponding to this one on fr: and when I plugged in the interwiki link, I wondered about the title of this article. A chess arbiter is not necessarily an international arbiter, the title of FIDE arbiter also exists. Moreover, national federations and chess organizations that are not linked to FIDE (e.g. the FSGT in France) also have their arbiter titles. So, I believe this article should be renamed either chess arbiter or arbiter (chess), depending on your naming conventions. Since I am not used to the procedures on en:, I am leaving this up to you.

Also, there are international arbiters in other sports, e.g. soccer. Oyp (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need an article on chess arbiter or Arbiter (chess). Right now there are a lot of links to International Arbiter that would be better served by an article like this. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd probably favour Arbiter (chess) for consistency withGrandmaster (chess), but I guess either would do. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

itsyourturn.com spam?

I've noticed a lot of chess pages include itsyourturn.com spam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=itsyourturn.com&go=Go

It's like someone adds in a subtle variation which for some reason demands a link to their website for explanation. I don't think it would hurt wikipedia to remove these, or rewrite them in a generic sense, so that every chess game type doesn't have itsyourturn.com plastered all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.217.123 (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly every chess game. The site is linked eight times in total and some of those are not chess related. I'm not sure it does comply with WP:EL however, but it does seem as least partly relevent. SunCreator (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Sevian

Samuel Sevian survived the AfD. I think the article has way too many trivial details about each of his tournaments and each rating change. Please give an opinion. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 04:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is trivia. Have replied on talk page. Talk:Samuel_Sevian#too_many_trivial_details SunCreator (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

After I left this message I spent a lot of time on cleaning it up. Too much for such an unimportant article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Krakatoa (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much information?

There is a disagreement at Samuel Sevian. One section is a list of all of his most recent tournaments and their corresponding rating change. I think this is too much unnecessary information. Even top players such as Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov don't have this level of detail, and they played in notable tournaments instead of the non-notable tournaments Sevian played in.

Please give an opinion on the article's talk page or make a change to the article. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 20:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with your evaluation. I have removed those sections but got reverted with an accusation of vandalism.  Dr. Loosmark  16:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First this is not the an appropriate link wp:ISNOT#Content, it talk about the difference between wikipedia and a dictionary whit has nothing to do whit this article. Also you didn't properly quote this part and this part actually favour me WP:NOT#STATS. You see it clearly says that stats sheet can be confusing to the readers. That being sayed we can conclude that the article aren't meant to be confusing to the readers. Witch bring us to keeping the stats since it indicate why his last rating is so far above his rating in the monthly list ( you see the USCF has done an error, it hasn't properly kept track of ther rating changes and it publish the list way before it due release date). Also stating that two ( unknown ) editors in the chess project have given ther opinion isn't inuff you half to specify who and give me a link to wat they sayed. Also they should come on this page read wat i wrote and then comment on it and explain how wat am saying is bad and why they think it should be kept.

Am sorry but you haven't given me any valid arguments on why we should remove it ( actually you favour my cause ). All you did is given me 1 false link and then given me a link that talk about confusing the readers ( witch is wat removing the list would do ). Am gonna half to undo it. Once you give me valid argument and more support then one guy who hasn't justified his opinion ( he just stated something and didn't validate his point ) and 2 random unknown editors whit out the link to ther argument then we might take it off. GSP-Rush (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is talk for the page please stop taking everything out of context and verify before you agree whit something or not.

Also you could have 100 people on this article that say it should be remove that wouldn't matter. As long as it in the rule of wikipedia and you guys are not able to prove that it not then must stay.

Also to Bubba73 stating that an article is not important show great ignorance, don't state that any approve article is unimportant.

I didn't hear one argument on this page or Samuel Sevian talk page all it is, is Bubba73 stating it in way that make you want to agree and not looking at the other side. Then just agreeing and making a random decision.

And last but not least ther no such thing as to much information. Ther is useful information and useless information. This give a better understand of Samuel Sevian position and tell why ther is a major difference between wat the USCF rating list and his current rating. The USCF made an error if you delete you just pushing people ignorance.GSP-Rush (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See wp:CONSENSUS. Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this looks like a storm in a teacup. Please do not bite the newcomers comes to mind. I suggest a compromise of a summary of something like the Recent tournaments section of Maxime_Vachier-Lagrave. SunCreator (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Need some help

Dear all,

Hi! I'm from WikiProject Chess at portuguese wikipedia. Unfortunatelly, the only one editing about chess issues there. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to got your opinion about "chess pieces". Here's the thing: Recently pt:Rei (xadrez) received FA status and I've been working on Queen, Rook and Bishop articles. Well I divided king article in five sections: origin and etymology, designing, movement, "King's role during a match" and "The figure of the king in other variants". My first doubt is about this article itself. Did I forget something important? If you guys look at internal links I covered a lot of chess terms and most of refs are in english.

Queens article its almost done but I'm waiting for 3 books I bought to put more refs. This article is a little bit different from king's because I don't have any ideas to explore at designing section (Do you agree?) otherwise I can explore origin and etymology with develop of queen's movement. Move section will be ridiculous because there's nothing cool to explain but I believe it's a required section. At Queen's role I will explore a Queen sacrifice to ilustrate a match, which one do you prefer: A active sacrifice, a passive one (like bobby fischer in the Match of the century) or both? Well, I think that's enough for now. Thanks a lot! Best Regards OTAVIO1981 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just on layout and looks the pt:Rei (xadrez) (translated) and pt:Dama (xadrez) (translated) articles looks superb. Shows how much work is required to King (chess) and Queen (chess). SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Something in pt:Rei (xadrez) - maybe some sort of position to show power of king in ending? I have little knowledge of piece design so no comment on that. An active queen sacrifice has more wide appeal as to see the brillance in the Fischer sacrafice takes a more refined ability at chess. SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reply SunCreator! Sometimes I think I underestimated the power of opposition and stalemate in ending. When I started rewriting those articles my first idea was stay focus in "the piece" and don't go far on strategy. I'll explore "strategy section" in next pieces after all chess is a strategy game! Recently, I put Chessboard article pt:Tabuleiro (xadrez) to WP:FAC. I think it a little bit of work to be done in prose and layout. First comments mention the wide range of chessboard variants not explained and lack of tridimensional board's image. Thanks! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope for some replies from other chess members, given your good questions and exceedingly good editing. SunCreator (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

name change?

A few weeks ago World Championship in Composing for Individuals was changed to World Championship of Chess Composition. Now there are discussions to change it back, since the former is the actual name. Please see the discussion page and give input. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Sevian - Candidate Master?

There is a debate about whether or not Samuel Sevian is a Candidate Master. See the article's talk page and history. Opinions are welcome. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an inquiry from a reader

Hi, I thought I'd highlight my inquiry here. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChess_opening&action=historysubmit&diff=344432612&oldid=333709348 . Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

The article of the chess world number one has become the most popular chess article of any substance being easily more viewed then Chess. The problem is the article is written in a list format. Is there anyone that is willing and able to change it to an encyclopedic prose based article. SunCreator (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the big parts about the details of every tournament and rating make for dull reading. It needs improvement. If the article continues to give his tournaments in this detail, the article is going to get very long and very dull. It needs to be improved. I suggest judicious pruning of the chess tournament and rating data. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chess study

Thie link [1] is somewhat incorrect as not all Chess studies are endgames. Do we have any other articles on Chess studies? SunCreator (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a valid and sensible redirect: I've never come across any studies that weren't set in the endgame. Do you have any examples? Don't forget a study is different from a problem, which can indeed be set in any part of the game.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Opening study - maybe more. SunCreator (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of an opening study. The task in a study, as I understand it, is to determine how White can win or draw (in an unspecified number of moves, unlike a problem), which is obviously impossible if the position is still in the opening!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)