Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess: Difference between revisions

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:

supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
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.

+ − = or WLD

Why don't we replace (+4, -2, =9) by something better, even (4W 2L 9D) would be clearer to most readers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably stick with the mathematical symbols out of choice. I'm not sure if either is any clearer than the other to a non-serious chess player (WLD = Width, Length and Depth in some walks of life), hence my preference would be to align with well respected texts such as The Oxford Companion To Chess (Hooper & Whyld). Worth noting that Sunnucks' and Golombek's Encyclopedias also follow the same format and so, assuming this is true of most chess books, beginners/students may benefit more from a consistent approach. If it isn't already covered, we could add an explanation to the article Chess Tournament - e.g. 'Reporting tournament results', if that helps. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure WLD is clearer than +-=. If we want something really clear, we would have to go for (4 wins, 2 losses, 9 draws). Better clarity, but longer... SyG (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedias you list use the +-= format, but they are intended for people who are pretty familiar with chess. The general public is more familiar with win/loss/tie or something similar. The +-= format is likely to be unclear to the general reader of Wikipedia. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how this is a problem. The +-= designation is extremely intuitive and hardly even needs explanation. Moreover, it's the standard used in most chess articles and books. The argument that it's less clear than writing out wins and draws for those completely unfamiliar with chess seems besides the point. Algebraic notation (which is way more complex and less intuitive than +-=, by comparison) is also something people who don't know chess might be unfamiliar with. Should we abolish that too, and write out "white pawn on the square e2 moves two squares up to the square e4", instead? I should hope not. Also, isn't writing in-depth articles that can be understood by someone with no background on chess (although I would argue that +-= is so basic, one doesn't need any knowledge of chess to understand it) an unrealistic standard? Certainly, a Wikipedia article on Fourier Analysis makes the assumption that the reader knows how to add, subtract, and even integrate functions. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not beside the point - that is the point. Most of the readers of Wikipedia are not familiar with chess literature. Each article that uses algebraic notation has a box linking to the article explaining AN. In addition, if there is a diagram, AN is clearer. There is no similar explanation of +-=. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but in many articles there are no moves or diags, only WLD data. (BTW, here's a formatting idea: W4.L2.D9 or 4W.2L.9D – it doesn't require any spaces, parens, or commas, and it keeps the scores together as a single entity—the match record.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso, can you please not delete the previous discussion next time? I made several arguments for why +-= is the better choice that you simply went ahead and deleted. There were also some further objections Bubba73 raised that I answered. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but don't delete the discussion. Anyways, here's a copy and paste of my most salient points;

ChessPlayerLev, thanks for restoring the discussion, I was surprised to see that I somehow inadvertently deleted it, I really do not know how that happened! Rest assured I consider all Talk discussion sacrosanct and would never intentionally delete or modify anyone's comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, no worries, then.ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(+ - =) is so simple and intuitive, one can figure it out immediately just by looking at it. Again, while I normally hate to use personal experience, I've never heard of anyone, out of a few hundred students/fellow chess friends, that hasn't immediately understand this notation.
If math and science articles on Wikipedia presuppose some knowledge (quite extensive) of the material, why can't chess articles assume a far more limited, basic knowledge of the material, too? I notice you didn't answer this point at all.

As for why your specific WLD proposal is a poor idea, Ihardlythinkso, it's simply not ever used by actual chess players. A chess player reading your article (and believe me, the number of chess players reading chess articles on Wikipedia is not small compared to the number of non-chess players reading chess articles on Wikipedia!) would be completely confused by your WLD proposal. Well either that, or he/she would laugh and shake their head about it. To use an arithmetic analogy, how about instead of using "+" to denote addition, you were to change it to the word "plus", because "people who don't know arithmetic would get confused"? That would be a wrong choice, no? Chess players use (+ - =) It's the standard, and should be kept because of the two points above. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ChessPlayerLev, you misunderstand. I wasn't advocating that +4 −2 =9 be abandoned or replaced. I was adding the idea that, if +4 −2 =9 *is* ever replaced by W4 L2 D9, that W4.L2.D9 or 4W.2L.9D be considered too. (If you would ask me what I think about the adequacy versus confusion of the current +4 −2 =9, my answer would be that I haven't really thought about it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. Hopefully though, it won't come to that! :)ChessPlayerLev (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other symbols too

On a related matter, what is recommended for "upper hand": ( +- and -+ ) or ( +/- and -/+ )? (I've seen both.) And for "slightly better": ( += and =+) or ( +/= and =/+ )?

Second, if ECO-type symbols familiar to players are recommended (as opposed to English or English abbreviations for non-players per Bubba), then isn't it a shame there isn't a special set of correctly-configured evaluative symbols available for use in articles? (I.e., for the two above, plus "decisive advantage", "unclear", and "with compensation".) For sure they could be coded as {{ }} templates.

Don't know if I agree about symbols versus some sort of English/English-abbreviated equivalents, I think Bubba might be right. (When readers run into the symbols, they aren't directed anywhere – ala notation tag – to be able to know how to interpret them! Shouldn't they have access to a "key" somewhere, somehow?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idea-suggestions for symbol-generating templates:

{{wld|_wins_|_losses_|_draws_}} – symbols for win/loss/draw record
{{slight|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black is slightly better
{{plus|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black has upper hand
{{win|_W_or_B_}} – symbol for White/Black has decisive advantage
{{unclear}} – symbol for position is unclear
{{with comp}} – symbol for with compensation

And maybe, if the generated symbols could all be links too, taking the reader to a single page-key interpreting what all the symbols mean!? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Ok, I see there is &plusmn for ±, but no "&mnplus" for Black. And &infin for ∞, but no "with comp" version. And I see &minus can be used to improve the look of +- or +–, to +−. (That's good!!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources assign a different meaning to the symbols. For example, in NCO +− is "white is winning" and ± is "white is much better". I would linearize the second as +/- to distinguish the two. I don't think this matters for our articles, as in wikipedia these should always be written out in English prose. Perhaps the symbols would of more value in wikibooks:chess, although really my feeling is that you can do a lot of chess writing without needing them. There is a chess openings wikibook somewhere, and that might be the place for them. Quale (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The NCO symbols seem to match ECO meanings (+− for "White has a decisive advantage" and ± for "White has the upper hand").

So to summarize, the convention for articles is to use prose instead of symbols +−, +/−, and +/=, but to continue to use (+ − =) for game records (as Bubba questioned above)? (In articles using tables of game records, I've seen + − = meanings spelled out, but that would be cumbersome in articles without long tables of records, such as article Bobby Fischer.)
p.s. I thought "Wikibooks" were compilations sourced directly from WP articles (is that incorrect?). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there are both plus-minus and minus-plus characters available in Unicode: ± and ∓. Also, I think Ihardlythinkso's idea about templates was good and would be worth implementing. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is ∞, but unfortunately I don't think we should actually use it in our articles. Quale (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No single character for +/= or =/+ otherwise it might be suitable with ±, ∓, and ∞. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Numeric Annotation Glyphs article, ⩲ and ⩱ are, in fact, single character +/= and =/+ symbols. Unfortunately the Linux system I am using at the moment does not know how to render those symbols. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phildius defence

There is a new article about a Phildius Defence, but googling that did not give me reliable sources. Would someone have a credible reference for that ?SyG (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has found any sources. It has been nominated for deletion/redirection, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phildius Defence. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Bubba ! SyG (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"piece" meaning "minor piece"

Is there a reference for the use of the word "piece" to mean a minor piece? I checked seven references and found none. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Quale (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an observation, but when an annotator says "White wins a piece", that usually means that White has gained a bishop or knight (or two bishops for a knight; or two knights for a bishop). The fact that bishops and knights are routinely traded for each other during games makes this a useful generalization over e.g. "White has won a bishop". If it is a rook that has been won, the annotation usually says "rook", not "piece". Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. When someone wins, loses, or sacrifices "a piece", it normally means a minor piece. But I haven't found a reference for that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This website's url address indicates that the source is a blog, but to me it looks like a pretty reliable glossary and not a blog entry. The definition of "piece" covers what you are looking for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added that to chess piece#Terminology. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new article: Arrangement of chess pieces

Hello everyone!

Yesterday I was reading Sunnucks encyclopaedia and found this nice entry! There's a lot to write about it and I started a portuguese version. You can check here the first draft and I'll work for a few days to improve it. So, if someone is interested in a cross-wiki discussion please tell me. Most part of my sources are in english so it will be easier for you guys check and improve your own version. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Companion to Chess calls the initial arrangement the "array". My opinion is that if the coverage does not go beyond the rules, then there is not so much need for a separate article beyond what is in the rules of chess article; however if there is some history or otherwise deeper coverage on this, then a separate article may be justifiable. Thank you for your efforts here and on the Portuguese Wikipedia! Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment Sjakkalle! I think that's a lot to say for a separate article. First, we could explain chronologically changes in the array: Rook's at elephant place in India, Murray stating that paws and horse position never changed (I think he's stated it's kind of a pattern to identify chess but I'm not sure), Vizir/King position in frontal position to each order and crossed position in chess variants, etc. Plus, we could talk about array in other importants variants like shogi and xiangqi where pieces are placed in the edges, the importance of array to developing of opening theory and what happens in Chess960. Other point that could be mentioned is the introduction of a checkered board by XIII and h1 as white and "queen in her color" motto and what to do if a wrong array is observed during game in a championship. I'm not sure if it's possible get a GA status but it helps to non-players set the board and helps to summarize this subject in chess rules (where by the way I think it's not well covered) and other chess variants articles. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on other language Wiki's

Have created a list of German chess articles missing from the English Wikipedia. This might be useful to consider new articles or finding articles that have an interlanguage links missing. If there is interest in it's use and other languages are required let me know. Articles are only shown if listed on two Wikipedia's; started with German because it is quite large and tends to check articles for notability. Of course German notabilty may not pass English notability but it's a good start. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no then. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not despair if answers are not coming as quickly as hoped :-) For my side I found your idea very interesting and useful, but unfortunately my knowledge of German is not sufficient to translate one of these. I speak fluent French though, so if the time needed to create such a list is not too much, I would propose to do the same for articles from the French Wikipedia, and maybe someone (or myself) someday will pick one of these and translate it ! You are essentially planting long-term seeds here ! SyG (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea, thanks! I don't speak German myself, but I think google translate should provide enough details for for me to recreate an article here. U+003F^? 08:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class Review

Just wanted to draw attention to that, since it seems somewhat unwatched. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that page watched at all? I seem to have still recieved no response at all. I would love it if the article could be reviewed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hi878, sorry for not having answered before. I guess the article you submitted will not attract many reviewers, because this is not really about a chess subject, more about an IT engineer that has built one chess program. I would even go as far as to say that this person is not really notable from a chess point of view, only his invention is. SyG (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He also made a chess variant, Baroque chess; I think that is more why his article is listed in this project. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 14:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more interest would be shown about Robert Abbott (game designer) over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, but they have no A-Class review. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe submit for a Wikipedia:Peer review? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't do A-Class review either. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason for an A-class review? An option is Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review, the article is a biography so it does apply. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured that an A-Class review before going near FA would be helpful. WP:BIOs A-Class review has been frozen for quite a while; trust me, this is the only relevant project with one. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want a Wikipedia:Peer review "Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." for example Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rosendale_Theatre/archive1. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having an A-Class review page, then? It seems as though it is a waste of space, if one is just going to be told to go to WP:PR. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 17:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea at one point was to ensure an article was complete and accurate in terms of content by getting knowledgable people from a relevant WikiProject. It's largely feel out of favour except in very active WikiProjects like WP:HISTORY. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hi878 has a point: our A-class review has no contributor anymore, and was designed at a time when C-class did not exist already. Do we still need a category between GA and FA ? I propose to scrap the A-level for WP:CHESS altogether. SyG (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a review is not that useful anymore. But the class itself has got two articles in it, what would you do with them (Category:A-Class_chess_articles), designate them as GA which they both are already? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly, they would become GA-class.SyG (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Polgar photos in public domain

Hello everyone!

Good news! (I hope) Susan Polgar left 60 (sixty) pictures in public domain! I checked at commons category and there is just 4 pictures so, I have two guesses: 1) we didn't know and maybe there's something useful to upload at commons. 2) You guys know and there's nothing good to upload. Please check the link at [1] to see if there's something good. I don't have access from my work so I'm dying to know if there's a picture with her sisters! pls, if it is upload it! Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several we really should get (put them in commons.wikimedia first). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are photos of Polgar with Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal, and Fischer we definitely need, plus Karpov, Kasparov, Spassky, and others that could be useful. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chess notability

I think it would be helpful to create a notability for chess somewhere that was agreed on. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we do. It's been discussed a few times, and I've been in the minority in not seeing the need. What is the problem that must be solved? WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG seem fine. Quale (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It comes up a lot in AfD discussions of minor players. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are these discussions unsatisfactory in some way? The hypothetical problems I can imagine that such a guideline might help address are

Too many non-notable chess articles created lead to a excessive number of AFDs.
The AFD discussions founder or become bitter or protacted due to lack of a guideline to help determine notability.
The AFD discussions lead to undesirable results as either articles on notable chess subjects are deleted or articles on non-notable chess subjects are kept.

I try to keep an eye on chess-related AFDs, and personally I have not witnessed any of these things. The number of chess AFDs seems rather modest to me, the discussions are generally courteous and productive, and the results are almost always ones that I consider correct. Which of these issues do you see, or is there some other problem that you think such a guideline would eliminate? My general opinion is that wikipedia already has far too many guidelines and I think less is more except in cases where the bureaucracy meets a definite need. It's possible that you would like to see more chess bios deleted than I would and thus have a concern about #3. In the past I didn't see the value in articles on minor players, but I have changed my mind about that. Now I subscribe to WP:Build the web, and I think that brief, factual articles on minor players help give a more complete picture of chess competition in their eras. If there are reliable sources, there's a good chance they meet WP:GNG. Quale (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions in the last week or so about ESports have moved in the direction that WP:ATHLETE applies only to physical activities. So next time WP:ATHLETE is used in an AFD on a chess related item don't expect it to stick. This is why I feel that some sort of chess notability (WP:NCHESS) is written. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I should have looked more closely at the current state of WP:ATHLETE. I thought the last time I paid close attention to it it was worded a bit more broadly, but currently the only part relevant to chess is "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." This does not include national champions as these contests are generally not international, so even though WP:GNG always applies it is possible that some chess bios that I consider notable enough for inclusion could be deleted. (It is also quite possible that WP:ATHLETE was never as broad as I thought it was—it could be my faulty memory or sloppy reading of the page.) I haven't seen notable chess pages deleted yet, but perhaps it would be a mistake to wait until after some notable chess biographies are lost before starting to write a chess notability guideline. Quale (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few years, the members of the chess project have generally agreed about what we consider a notable chess player. Can we sumarize that and put it on the project's main page? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me when will start because I'd like to participate. Regards.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll get the ball rolling. This is based on past discussions on this talk page and in many AfD discussions.

For players of recent times:

Grandmasters are notable. This includes women grandmasters, correspondence grandmasters, etc.
International masters are generally not notable unless they are also renowned in some other way, usually as a coach/teacher, composer, theoretician, writer, arbiter, etc. Examples: Mark Dvoretsky and Jeremy Silman.
Lower players may be notable if they are national champions, played in an Olympiad, or are notable as a writer or teacher. Examples: Bruce Pandolfini and Graham Burgess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if all GM are notable. For old players, I sugest an entry in a printed encyclopaedia like Oxfor Companion to Chess, although it's not a big problem in a AfD.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many grandmasters today that I don't think they all are notable and need a WP page either. However, I don't think anyone has ever proposed deleting an existing article about a GM. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Bubba73's proposal; I agree with OTAVIO1981 that there are entirely too many GMs today, some who were never even top 1000 among active players in the world. However, as a basic rule of thumb, Bubba73's notability criteria works.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Esserman

About Marc Esserman:

Is he notable
some of the main editors of this article seem to edit nothing else. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything notable. There was little in the way of national or international press coverage. Clearly there was some coverage of his defeating strong GMs like Van Wely and Benjamin, but then hasn't every IM occasionally beaten a GM? That's almost a necessary part of getting your IM norms, uness you're very lucky to have other results fall in your favour. We normally look for some extra point of notability to elevate an IM to these pages, but he doesn't have the usual distinguished coach (eg Dvoretsky) or prolific writer (eg John Watson) facets to supplement his playing. Neither did I notice a standout tournament win, or anything else exceptional that might suffice. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put a notability tag on it, but it was removed today. I PRODed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was removed - now on AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having grown up playing chess during roughly the same time he did, I've always known who Marc Esserman was. (And was quite honored to meet him when I beat his older brother in a tournament) Anyways, Bubba73 is correct in stating that he is only an IM. However, Esserman is very active in the national chess scene, as detailed in the article, and was a notable, famous scholastic player. He also he has a very high rating for an IM and still seems to be improving. He might obtain a GM title in the near future.

As such, I would probably call the article "borderline". He's not even remotely as notable as someone like Dvoretsky or John Watson, obviously, but I don't mind having an article on him here.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article went through the AfD process and was kept. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split fast chess?

I think that the fast chess article may need to be split - making a separate article for the championship tournaments. The problem is that there is very little info about the championships. What do you think? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the added value of having separate articles ? SyG (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One would be about fast chess itself, the other would be about the world championships. We have chess and world chess championship. OTOH, Correspondence chess lists the champions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created World Correspondence Chess Championship Mauropetrolo (talk) 14:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chess960 also has the info about its championship in the main article, so I guess Fast chess should stay as it is. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Turnbull

Is Murray Turnbull notable enough for inclusion? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. We once had an article for a guy called Tom Pym - he won the British championship in his age group, but subsequently didn't progress in chess and his article was removed. So for consistency, I'd say this entry is no more deserving. According to the FIDE website, Turnbull doesn't even have an ELO rating! Brittle heaven (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Turnbull. SyG (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both you guys. This guys is nowhere near notable enough. I had no clue who he was despite having several master friends from the New England area, and having read "Chess Horizons" for several years, which even covers the blitz street masters on Harvard Square! As a player, he's decent national master strength, far below even IM, let alone GM caliber. I see that when the article was recommended for deletion, no consensus was reached. Can we nominate it for deletion again?

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be nominated again. It is done slightly differently. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for such an amazingly fast reply! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and after scouring the various pages on deletion and nominating for deletions, I can't quite found how an article gets re-nominated. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is the article about deleting articles. For a second Afd, see "second nomination" at part IV. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic updated FIDE rating in infobox (by bot)

Hello all chess portal enthusiasts!

I'm not sure whether this is the correct place to ask this question (and hope you can point me into the right direction otherwise) - but lets try... ;)

In German wiki we use an automatic system driven by w:de:User:DrTrigonBot to feed the template w:de:Vorlage:Elo-Punkte with the actual FIDE ratings (elo numbers >= 2400 as a relevancy cut-off since the full list is is about 1.4MB) which are used in the infobox to display the correct rating. This is a quite comfortable way to have always the most actual ratings (+/- 1 day) without the need of any user spending time which could be of more use elsewhere. And it would be a good thing for me (as operator of this bot) in order to have a first task setup in order for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval#DrTrigonBot to progress.

To summarize - in order to have an automatic update on the fide players ratings we would have to:

setup a template (similar to w:de:Vorlage:Elo-Punkte)
add the FideID as parameter to the existing Template:Infobox chess player and change the template to use the data from 1.)
slowly migrate the existing infoboxes to use the FideID parameter instead of rating

I would be happy to apply the points 1.) and 2.) in order to enable this feature for you, if this would be ok?

Please have a look, thanks a lot for your feedback and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait and see what others are saying, but this looks fantastic ! Thanks for pointing that out ! SyG (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be wonderful. I have never updated a FIDE rating, but quite a bit of editor time is spent doing it, and I have questioned the value of spending so much human time doing it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First thanks for your positive replies! Second we have now 2 comments after a period of 2 days... would you like to wait longer or shall I start implementing this? ;) Thanks again and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I would add my appreciation if this can be rolled out. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to me as well, so I think you can go ahead ! SyG (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool! Here is what I did:

created Template:Elo rating which does currently contain 1 data set only and should get filled by the bot tonight
modified Template:Infobox chess biography in order to include a new parameter 'FideID' (analogue to dewiki)
modified Template:Infobox chess biography/doc in order to include an example for the 'FideID' parameter
the 'rating' parameter can still be used in order to provide additional info
if the 'FideID' parameter is not given or no rating available for the given 'FideID' the previous behaviour is used

now you have to take a look and decide what minor changes have to be done in order to have the look and feel you like. I added a link to the 'FIDE Chess Profile' in order to be easily able to check the corectness of the FideID used and to have access to actual world ranking. Then - finally - if everybody is happy the last step 3) has to be done too. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - what do you think about the result? Anyone? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to finally inform you all; the bot request was approved - thus the bot will continue to run and update the data - feel free to use them by implementing item 3) and enjoy! Thanks and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way; what about a bot request to do a single bot run in order to implement 3) ? This would involve searching the FideID's for each (active) player and modify the infobox accordingly. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you haven't gotten much response lately! Excellent idea, and I am sure everyone is in favour of this. So is the bot up and running? Has it done any edits yet? Note that FideID's could be read from the template template:fide which is in the external link section at the bottom of most active chess players, see eg Levon Aronian, first link in external links. Regards Voorlandt (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is running since 30th of December as can be seen e.g. at Special:Contributions/DrTrigonBot but I am waiting on any response here. I adopted the infobox as well but got no feedback whether this was ok or not...?!? You are mentioning the template template:fide (which I did not knew till now) and in my opinion that should be integrated into the infobox (else we would have the info twice) as well... But I do not want to re-manage all your templates without any feedback... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the new style very useful, and have added a FideID to various players. Can I ask why it the bot only adds players with ratings over 2400? U+003F^? 09:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*phuuu* At least someone... ;))) Thanks a lot! The reason why we decided to use > 2400 only (was decided on dewiki in fact) was because else the page becomes huge (I think to remember something like ~1.4MB) have a look at e.g. this where you can see the full data is ~5MB. But we can raise/lower that value, e.g. all > 2000 as wished... (typically the people with low rankings are not the most intressting ones... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are performance issues, I would consider lowering the threshold, or perhaps having no threshold. Whilst most of the players we are interested in are 2400+, some (chess authors, say) are not. U+003F^? 13:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance and memory (or something else) should not be the problem since the bot runs on the toolserver and once a day only. I lowered the threshold to 2000 but you have to wait till 01:30 for the changes to take place (as you can see from history). Feel free to change it yourself and play around. Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After looking at dewiki again I recognized there simply all ratings below 2400 are still added in the conventional way - do not know why... may be they are assumed to change less often...? Just another way to go... ;) --DrTrigon (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems I was a little bit too optimistic; the write action failed... you can get an impression by looking at the log-file (mainbot.log of Jan, 31th) - most of it's content is this write trial... I think I would have to split it into several smaller fractions in order to be able to write it to page - thus opened DRTRIGON-113 - I hope you are patient since at the moment I do not have that much time (it will definately get solved some time)?! The question now is if we want to wait with the bot run mentioned below until all data are present, or just replace all with >= 2400 in the bot run? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes to the infobox you did are perfect. Having the link to fide there instead of in the external links is very useful as well. Since we have so many players, it would be nice to have a little tool to add FideID to all the infoboxes (and like i said before, the id can in most cases already be found in the external link section). --Voorlandt (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I opened a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests#Add 'FideID' parameter to chess infobox to find someone providing such a 'little tool' to us - hope this is what you like. The open question to me is whether we want to remove the template:fide in the same bot run since it is linked from ranking number already? Or do you want to keep it in the external links section (also)? Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it can then be removed from the external link section. But perhaps other people see this differently. Thank a lot for all your hard work in this! --Voorlandt (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the summary of the summary; For all articles containing the chess infobox, the fide template and having a ranking >= 2400 elo points, the bot run does move the fide id from fide template to chess infobox and remove the ranking there as well as the fide template. I will pass this to the bot run request (which was not sucessful till now... any idea why?). Thanks and greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like we have a taker now? Cannot wait for it to happen. Thx again for all your efforts!--Voorlandt (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verbeterde List

I stumbled on Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation, Verbeterde List and that raises a couple of questions to me.

1) Is that really the accepted name, or just a name used locally (in the Nederlands) for self-glory ? Google did not show any relevant source, only circular references to Wikipedia. If you happen to have books on the Sicilian, could you please check what name this variation is really given ?

2) Is this variation notable enough to earn a full article ? Does anyone know if entire books have been devoted to this line ? (which I would personally view as a sure hint of notability)

SyG (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I saw the article about a week ago. It was originally named just "Verbeterde List" and was moved to the current name. To me, it seems short enough to be included in the parent article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems unproven and extremely dubious at this point. If Ftacnik's book is the only known reference, then I would want to know that he speaks of it in a 'global recognition' sense and doesn't just say something like ... known in the Netherlands as the Verbeterde List'. The latter would give it no gravitas at all. Also, I could be wrong, but doesn't Verbeterde mean 'enhanced' in Dutch? That would suggest to me that some annotator has casually labelled it an 'enhanced' version of the Najdorf, which is hardly grounds for the birth of a name. Generally, named variations arise after many years of practice and not as a result of an overnight trend or passing comment.Brittle heaven (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, "Verbeterde" means "improved", so you are basically right. I think it should be merged. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I have sent the article to AfD. SyG (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rotlewi versus Rubinstein

Also Botvinnik versus Capablanca and Levitsky versus Marshall. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came by here to ask about these new articles submitted for DYK. What's the notability criteria for individual games? Sasata (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed notability of players several times, and have a general agreement, but not for games. But there aren't very many individual games that have articles. Both of these are in major references My Great Predecessors and The Mammoth book of The World's Greatest Chess Games. (The Rubenstein game is also in 500 Master Games of Chess.) These games involve top players and have been acclaimed in sources. They are not as well known as The Game of the Century, The Immortal Game, and The Evergreen Game, but they are outstanding games. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the criteria? Am I free to create, for example, articles for every game analyzed in MGP? Similarly, modern games of top players are often reported in multiple (reliable) sources, and analysed by GMs. Can articles be created for all of these games too? Sasata (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This game is often used as an example of a passed pawn breakthrough. Just google it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not think having an article on each game presented in MGP would be a big problem. After all, we have thousands of articles on obscure chess players, having a few hundred articles on chess games would not hurt. SyG (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many games that have their own article. I think only:

I think that doing all of the games in My Great Predecessors would be overdoing it, and also it would not be representative since it concentrates on world champions. Does someone want to weigh in on the criteria for a game notable enough to have a WP article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think something has to make the game special, like special names. The opera game can be considered special since I heard that Morphy played the game without looking at the board.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose the following criteria (all necessary, none sufficient):

game presented in several books, and preferably not books about openings. (and not books written by one of the players, neither).
game cited/recognised by some top-players as "special".

SyG (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think those criteria are reasonable, I might add that a game that generates wide interest beyond the chess community is also a viable criterion. In ancient times, that was my motive for initiating the Deep Blue-Kasparov Game 6 article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotlewi-Rubinstein is one of the most famous chess combinations ever played, cited in dozens upon dozens of books about tactics OR classic games that I have read. It's also considered (by far) Rubinstein's most famous game, and included in any of the dozens of books written about him. (Keep in mind Rubinstein was one of the original GMs, and one of the top 3 players in the world in his prime, behind only Lasker and Capablanca) Also, I like SyG's criteria!

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability problems preventing player coverage

Being rather new to this project, I'm a little confused about how we establish notability for chess players. Pretty much, if there wasn't a biography written online about the player, there is little notability according to the number of secondary sources I find online.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are only confused about notability for chess players? The question of what is notable has been contended over the entire Wikipedia almost since its inception :-). There is nothing codified, but I don't think we have ever deleted a reasonable article about a Grandmaster. To my knowledge, national champions have at worst ended with "no consensus" at AFD as well, but it is possible that being a national champion in a small country without strong chess traditions will be insufficient. I believe that there have been cases where we have deleted International Masters, but an article on an IM is likely to be kept if there is a bit more to support an article, for example if the IM has authored some books that have been subject to independent reviews. In any case, the general notability guideline calls for independent secondary coverage in reliable sources so that the article has a foundation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is a root of the problem that we have less female chess players, especially non-BLPs.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just one note regarding your initial post: There is no requirement that the source be online (or free, or in English for that matter). If you have a reliable book or magazine source for the player, then that is just as valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have one of these books?

Attack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics, by Ludek Pachman
The Brilliant Touch in Chess, by Walter Korn

If so, can you check the game Korn-Pitschak and tell which moves have evaluations (!, ?, etc). Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game appears on pages 17-18 of Pachman's book. He gives 1...PxB! 2.R-B8 ch! KxR 3.Q-B5 ch K-K1 4.Q-B7 ch K-Q1 5.Q-B8 ch Kt-K1 6.Q-K7 ch! "and the game was given up as a draw." So, exclams for 1...PxB, 2.R-B8 ch, and 6.Q-K7 ch; no other punctuation. The game appears on page 16 of Korn's book. He is more parsimonious with the exclams, giving a double exclam to the last move (6.Q-K7 ch!!) and no other punctuation.

Pachman also analyzes second move alternatives for White (2.QxQ PxR=Q ch or 2.QxKP Q-R5 ch 3.K-Kt1 Q-R7 mate). Both authors also note at the end that it's either stalemate if Black takes the queen, or a perpetual check on b7 and e7 if he declines it. Krakatoa (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

What about merging:

List of Presidents of the United States Chess Federation

and

Executive Directors of the United States Chess Federation

into United States Chess Federation? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that proposal. Quale (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unpublished Houdini / Rybka / Crafty / Fritz = WP verifiable?

The question User:Erniecohen left at Talk:Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1#Bad analysis regarding WP policy on using advanced software analysis on games for chess articles, is a bit over my head. (Help, please? Thanks!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short time ago, an editor added Rybca and Crafty analysis to Giuoco Piano. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I see there's some Fritz 8 analysis in Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit. I'm sure there are even more examples already out there. (Is it a trend? Because editors see YouTube links freely posted to EL secs?) Anyway ... "The Giuco GETS A MAKE-OVER!!" :-O Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Imagine if this were allowed ... Then updates to latest move evaluations in articles would mirror frequency of updates to ratings in GM articles! Ha.[reply]

Ok, I addressed Halloween. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is no problem if, say, a GM cites a Houdini analysis. I would personnally see that as a reliable source. But now with the latest version of ChessBase and the new functionality "Let's Check" it seems Houdini's analysis may be stored automatically and dynamically in the game itself on ChessBase servers. See for example this ChessBase article. Would that count as a reliable source ? SyG (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it should. It doesn't just need to be when a GM cites Rybka, Houdini, or any other top chess program. Anyone can download and use these programs to analyze games, and these programs are now rated hundreds of points higher than Magnus Carlsen, the current #1 player in the world. However, care needs to be taken when citing these computer sources. If an engine evaluates some move as +0.15 while what the player chose is +0.10, that's essentially no difference, and can be disregarded. Programs like Houdini and Rybka will even change evaluation of the same move from one move to the next, anyways. However, if Houdini recommend some move that leads to an evaluation of -0.30 and instead the player made a move leading to -1.50, that is a significant blunder and will not change regardless of what engine you use, or which is considered the most powerful.

ChessPlayerLev (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is unworkable to use computer analysis that is not cited by a reliable source. First, I don't think anyone can legally download commercial software like Fritz for free and use it to analyze games. That issue aside, there are multiple problems with this.

How do I check a claim of computer analysis in an article ...
1. When it's a chess engine I've never heard of and can't find? Maybe I've heard of it but it's an engine that's difficult or impossible to obtain any longer, such as an old version.
2. When I don't know the precise parameters that were used? Maybe the precise parameters are given, but few if any people have the unusual hardware configuration used. For some engines there might not be any settings that give repeatable results on faster or slower hardware. Essentially what we're doing is performing an experiment and reporting our results, and this is very dangerous original research territory.
What if Fritz, Rybka, and Crafty all give very different analysis? The article could list them all, but then we could try to put analysis from every version of every engine on list of chess software. Yes, when we have multiple published sources, possibly conflicting, we use editorial judgment to decide which to include and which to omit. But I think there are more practical means of making editorial decisions on published sources than there are on chess engines.
In addition to the problem of choosing between the large number of chess engines, how do editors decide which positions to include computer analysis for? Every single move provides an opportunity to include computer analysis from multiple engines. If this were done chess opening articles would be unreadable. For consistency the Open Game article should include computer analysis from Houdini, Rybka, and Fritz for every move starting from 1.e4. The Ruy Lopez would be two orders of magnitude worse if this sort of computer analysis were included.
New versions of chess engines are released frequently. Is someone going to check all the computer analysis included in our articles to see if it needs updates every time a new version is available? What Tal, Fischer, or Kasparov wrote about a chess position will remain of interest for many years to come, decades after their deaths. What the current version of Houdini reports about a chess position won't be of much interest in even 5 years.

I really don't see any reason to use computer analysis in wikipedia chess articles. It causes a host of problems with no compelling advantages. Quale (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Quale that we should avoid computer analysis in Wikipedia articles unless those analyses have been cited by an expert in another source. Computers are also not all that good at giving proper evaluations in the midst of theoretical openings. For an example, I refer to Raetsky and Chetverik's Starting out: Queen's Gambit Accepted on the drawish Exchange Variation (1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.Qxd8+) where they write "Amusingly Fritz9 thinks White is up 1.42 pawns after this exchange of queens, but I can assure you that is not so!". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me answer Quale's objections point by point;

Well, how do you check that someone has properly cited a book reference in an article? Not everyone has a copy of Kasparov's "My Great Predecessors", for instance. Similarly, not everyone might have bought a copy of Rybka or Houdini. So what? There are some that do, and they can confirm or deny the validity of a cited suggestion.
Once again, this same concern can be applied to book references. My proposal is to just stick with the most popular, strongest programs. This isn't as hard as it sounds; there are published ratings for engines, and most engines are 3000+ rated. (Again, Magnus Carlsen, the strongest human player, is presently at 2835) Some engines are 3150+ rated. If an engine is 3000+ rated, (which is easily verifiable) its input should be allowed.
This is a fair point. It's definitely a target for possible abuse. However, ideally, this is a complete non-issue. Pretty much any set of decent parameters will return the same results. Okay, if you do something really stupid, like 1 second of analysis per move, you will get screwed-up results. But as long as you aren't, this isn't a problem.
A relatively rare occurrence, but yeah, it happens. However, it happens far less often than top GMs disagreeing about the best moves in a position! How do we solve the problem of two different strong GMs each recommending different moves in a position? What's the difference between this and Rybka disagreeing with Houdini? Again, the latter will occur in roughly 10 times fewer cases than the former will.
Again, I agree with you; someone who understands little about chess and engines can abuse this and do something really dumb. A lot of the engine appraisals of various openings are besides the point. However, I believe my suggestion above can fix this problem; "However, care needs to be taken when citing these computer sources. If an engine evaluates some move as +0.15 while what the player chose is +0.10, that's essentially no difference, and can be disregarded. Programs like Houdini and Rybka will even change evaluation of the same move from one move to the next, anyways. However, if Houdini recommend some move that leads to an evaluation of -0.30 and instead the player made a move leading to -1.50, that is a significant blunder and will not change regardless of what engine you use, or which is considered the most powerful."
Again, an exceedingly rare problem. There are presently no Wikipedia pages for games so complicated that two engines will give significantly different assessments of the same move. And keep in mind that in the future, the differences between engines will become finer and finer still.

Look, some of the points you raise are fair, (ie someone with no knowledge of how to apply computer analysis mucks things up), but that is true of literally ANYTHING on Wikipedia. There's always a possibility for abuse. I have outlined a few proposals above that I think will limit it. As for what advantages it confers, they're tremendous! Look, that same legendary world champion Kasparov, whose analysis you cited as so interesting? Something like 80% of his analysis in "My Great Predecessors" was done with a version of Fritz! And by the way, that version of Fritz was rated like 2750. Nowadays, Rybka are and Houdini are rated 3150+. The best player in the world, Magnus Carlsen, trusts these programs more than his OWN assessments! I think these programs can come way closer to "chess truth" than any human player can. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make some strong points. The problem I have is how would you reference it such that others could check the reference? For example running on different hardware or time limits would give differt results. So you couldn't say Houdini recommends a move because for others it may not thus WP:VERIFY is difficult. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about the question more in the days since making that comment, and now believe that the alternative is fine, too. It can indeed be difficult to immediately verify computer analysis as legitimate, and since every serious published game analysis nowadays includes Rybka/Houdini evaluations and recommendations, finding sources shouldn't be hard, either. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the engine analysis is in a published source then I think it is OK, otherwise not, because of wp:v. If it is published then it is fixed, rather than variable, as when someone runs it, depending on the parameters. Secondly, if it is published, then the author has examined the engine analysis and agrees with it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain in detail why it would be unwise to use unpublished computer analysis on Wikipedia and I stand by my reasons, but in fact it simply isn't allowed by policy. The WP:RS reliable source guideline requires that the source be published. There are no exceptions for citing the results you obtain by running a computer program. If the results of running a computer chess engine are published by a source that meets WP:V then it's fine, but that has never been in question. There is one curious corner case. Suppose an unpublished computer analysis showed an error in published human or computer analysis that missed something concrete like a mate in two. My view is that since that is directly verifiable by anyone who knows how to play chess that it would be OK to mention the flaw in the analysis in an article as a sort of WP:CALC exception. Be aware that this would be very strongly disputed by many other experienced editors as a violation of the no original research policy. Fortunately I think this particular occurrence is more a theoretical concern than anything that's likely to be a real issue. In many cases you can just avoid citing the flawed source even if it is otherwise considered reliable. We tried to handle a difficult case of several reliable sources that are probably just wrong on Talk:Yakov Estrin. Quale (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see chess engine analysis in the same way as images, they are evidence from a primary source that is normally best avoided. Contary to the above post there is no policy against its use as the WP:PRIMARY (part of no original research) says it should not be used but on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. WP:VERIFY is difficult, so for that reason I would be against its use. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are also straying dangerously into the realms of writing a 'manual' once we start publishing analysis. Wikipedia isn't a good practice guide or instructional manual; our purpose is not to seek the truth, just report the facts. Brittle heaven (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I disagree with SunCreator's opinion that citation of unpublished computer analysis could be justified by WP:PRIMARY. I maintain that it is categorically forbidden by WP:V and WP:RS to use unpublished sources of any kind, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary. From the WP:PRIMARY page that SunCreator links: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" (emphasis mine). Quale (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quale, WP:RS is not a policy but a guideline. The quoted bit on WP:PRIMARY fails to logic. In simple terms just by stating green apples are editable that does not mean that red apples are not editable. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

Is Chuck Diebert notable? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see many third-party references. Furthermore, he's not a GM. In short, no notability.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sent it to AfD. SyG (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afd needs expert eyes

Folks, you may be interested in this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray Turnbull (2nd nomination). – ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC

What's the correct setup?

I've played quite a lot of chess a while ago, then my memories got kinda rusty. But I thought the queen was supposed to go on its color, like it is said on the chess page, but someone else told me that the queen goes on the left, and the king goes on the right, and some people vice-versa. I was at first surprised to see how lots of people didn't know how to setup, but it made me think if there are any other types of chess that starts with a different setup. Does anyone know about the correct setup for the chess? and if there's any other occasions with different setups?