Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

WikiProject Chess Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Project Page	talk
Assessment	talk
Assessment statistics	talk
Review	talk
Chess Portal	talk

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

Raymond Keene

What do you think about the recent edits at this article? Is it really proper to reference such a sensitive WP:BLP issue with a blog? Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I think all of the recent plagiarization accusations could be sourced to the Chessbase article. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, the new stuff is not far from a repeat of the material already on there, so there needs to be some pruning. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. This article has serious WP:BLP issues right now, and suffers from WP:UNDUE weight and imbalance problems. (In the entire article the plagiarism claims chapter is the only one with subsections, greatly distorting the layout and TOC for the article.) I know that Keene is strongly disliked by many people and the article can reflect that, but it's primarily a hit piece now. The editor who added the negative material recently had done this back in 2009 as well, and there is some discussion on his talk page about issues with those earlier edits. I cleaned some of it up back then, but I don't have the time or stomach to try to fix the article right now. I hope someone else can work on it soon, but if not I will get to it when I can. Quale (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There continue to be WP:BLP issues at Raymond Keene. I trimmed some of the plagiarism claims that clearly don't pass the muster for bios of living people, but it still needs more pruning. Issues include undue weight, a blog used extensively as a source, and repetition of the same claims noted by Brittle heaven. Quale (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history

I'm struggling to see the point of this new enormous table which swamps the article. The author says it is to compare players that have had Elo ratings. Yet these are players of different eras, whose peaks may have occurred pre-1970. For example, his weighted ranking (whatever that is) shows that Henrique Mecking is higher ranked than Botvinnik, and that Ehlvest and Keres are of more or less equal importance. Surely this is why Sonas and Elo and others introduced retrospective ratings, so that some comparison could be made of players at their peaks? Am I missing something? Brittle heaven (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies to User Toccata Quarta, who has already indicated similar reservations on the article talk page. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys, I saw you have deleted the table I have introduced.

I'm new to wiki and not familiar with exact rules hear, forgive me if I sound a bit rude. Your points regarding Botvinnik, Ehlvest and Keres are fair to indicate, but in the article I have indicated that this is only based on all official fide listings since 1970. It's a pitty that we don't have them since Morphy's time or even since time when chess is created in India, but we should analyze what we have. If we believe ELO ratings, and as elo indicated they are relatively true for players within the same era. Than the wheighted ratings of top 6 is more fair to compare players than the peak rating which you have in the same article. If you discard this table, before that you have to discard all other rating based evaluations because they are unfair even more. How you estimate peak of Botvinnik in this case , or peak of Alekhine, peak of Morphy? I'm concerned why you are discarding the table which does compare with solely offical based numbers (nothing more was added). And it's more realistic than anything else you have their rating based. The table I have includes many greatest players (53) which is truly official, many players which might be considered as good players haven't included because dispite their fame they never cross top 6 in official fide ratings. Also chess is growing every year. Also there is some fair having recent players in top (which is a consequence) because chess teory and everything related to chess is continuously growing and enlarging, I would not fail to tell that if Steinitz, Botvinnik leaves nowdays with their play and strength, everyone from 2700 family will easily get advantage over them from debut and eventually win. So recent players are much better in terms of chess sport strength. So even from that perspective the table is fair. If you are chess lover like me, I think you would consider the table more seriously. I welcome any suggestions improvements on it's development and grow or reduce in terms of wiki rules. But let's try to get an advantage from the work I have done. Easiest thing is just have it delete, but noone gets advantage from it.Frunzedz (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Frunzedz. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its contents must rely on previously published information. Wikipedia does not publish original research. I understand your concern that using Elo ratings to compare players across different historical eras is a flawed method. The article acknowledges this point and goes on to present several previously published methods of solving this problem. However, we cannot publish the "unique metric" you have created on the page, because it has not been previously published in a reliable source. Should you do so, we would be happy to consider adding it into the article some time in the future.

P.S. to other editors: I think we should remove the bottom table as well, and the player quotes should be heavily trimmed. In my opinion the only lists noteworthy enough to include are Fischer's, Anand's and Chess Informant's; the others can either be deleted, or in cases where one player is singled out as "greatest of all time", moved to that player's page. Cobblet (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:Cobblet for explanation. Let me try to understand this (by asking some questions) and try to explain the table which I have introduced. I agree the point about 'weighted metric' which has no previous appearnce, it's just my try to formalize statistics, this is that's why I welcomed suggestions and now I understand the point - let's remove that column from the table. The table introduces all the players having included in top six, and gives some statistical data based on offical fide listings. Nothing new is introduced. You want reliable source, I think official fide listing since 2000 can be accessed in fide official site, for some old fide ratings I will provide reference later. It's just that number of official ratings is about 100. The work I have done is just collected this statistics about top 6. I think we can find such statistics in wiki for almost every sport. May be not rating based just championship based, etc. This article is called comparing top chess players ? What can be more fair than just including the statistics. The table is sortable so that people could see players sorted by different category. What I want is just some formalization of ELO's formulation about ELO ratings based on official statistics. Another questoin, where can be found reliable source for the table - Table of top 21 rated players ever, with date their best ratings were first achieved. I understand this official FIDE data collected in one table and sorted by peak value. Table I have introduced is nothing more than extended version of this table (excluded weighted metric which is nothing more than summary of all times player appeared in top six by place giving higher points for lower place, but ok let's just remove it, and sort based number of times player appeared in top six by default). So my suggestion is edit table and remove the column of weighted metric and just have another statistical data. Do you see any violation of wiki rules now ? Frunzedz (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But to arbitrarily limit the table to the top 6 (rather than the top 3, top 5, top 10, top 20, top 25, top 50, or top 100...) reflects a selective judgment on your part and introduces bias into the article. Unless you can demonstrate that it is common in chess literature and journalism to focus attention on the top six players on the FIDE rating list, this is a violation of WP:NPOV.

To be fair, the other table you mentioned violates NPOV for exactly the same reason: it is wrong to arbitrarily limit the number of peak ratings listed to 21, since this has the effect of unfairly highlighting Kamsky's career and diminishing that of whoever #22 would be. My suggestion would be to limit that table to only the players who have achieved a 2800 rating, because this is considered a newsworthy event whenever it happens: Google "Topalov 2800" for example. Cobblet (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The limit comes from availability of information. Since the first Fide ratings published includes top 6 players only (see http://www.chess.com/blog/goldendog/bits-of-old-fide-ratings-lists-1970-1996), I can provide some other sources as well. About 2800. Since rating inflation appears each year it's not fair to compare based on rating absolute value, I think (continuing arpad ELO's point) Frunzedz (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But that's hardly a good reason, even if the more complete list does not exist (and I suspect it does): why not top 3 or top 5 then? And your last point is absolutely true, but again, it is not Wikipedia's job to tell its readers what is fair, but what others say is fair, and what is done. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

At least 2 sources started to list top six players - http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/AlltimeList.html, http://www.chess.com/blog/goldendog/bits-of-old-fide-ratings-lists-1970-1996 which I used initially. I remind also some old public magazines which do list top 6. Having top 10 would require match wider list, and hard maintainible. Anyway any number what have been asked the same question. Frunzedz (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frunzedz (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's have a look at a passage that you added to the article:

"Weighted ranking computed by this table are unique metric by which all time chess players (having ELO rating) could be compared. Weighted ranking computed by the summary of all coefficents. Coefficents given per each listing with the following grades used - 6 points for each 1st place ranking, 5 - 2nd place, 4 - 3rd place, 3 - 4th place, 2 - 5th place, 1 - 6th place."

"Unique metric" is an admission of WP:OR. Please review that page. If you fail to understand it, please re-read it. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes we have agreed on that, and I suggested to remove that column (and any comment related to it), but keep other data which is truly statistical for top 6 players of all time since 1970 when official fide ratings published - nothing more. And we were discussing that many sources list top 6 that's why table have top 6 as well. Frunzedz (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to give me a good reason why the table should feature all the players in the top 6 rather than fewer players (and as it turns out, the full historical FIDE rating lists are extremely easy to find), and why a larger table would be better than the list at List of FIDE chess world number ones#Player statistics, which only lists information for players ranked #1 at some point. Again, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Also your idea of counting the number of appearances on published lists is deeply flawed, since not only has FIDE changed its rules on how long an inactive player can remain on the list (under the current rules, Fischer would have been delisted after 1973), but the lists have been published increasingly frequently over time, so your list makes it seem as if Topalov was in the top 6 longer than Karpov, which is patent nonsense. Cobblet (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Counting mounths is also not better, because for example Bobby Fischer haven't played a single game over 3 years 1972-1975, but it's counted as he was world number one, and your list lists it higher than Carlsen who has played almost every super tournament in that period. We can dispute infinitely (probably)... you have your opinion, I have mine.... Both are subjective obviously. I got tired bringing up arguments, whatever I will bring up is disputable (or nonsense for you !) and your arguments are as well disputable for me. Let's save time. Can you please tell me the rules hear: If I don't agree with you, what's the solution ? Should I give up by some reason, or am I supposed to dispute infinitely, or there is something better which I can do? Frunzedz (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states, "This article presents a number of methodologies that have been suggested for the task of comparing the greatest chess players in history." It is not a place for publishing statistics on players who once appeared in the top 6 of a FIDE rating list. You used chess.com as a source, and nothing is stopping you from going back there, creating your own account, and publishing your list, complete with the methodology you came up with. But it is not suitable content for Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be personal, but seems like I can't. Do you really think that if player has not been world number 1 by rating it's not great player? or it's not worthing to compare with number ones ? Even if yes, this is just your subjective opinion. Considering your suggestions to me what todo outside of wiki - please keep them with yourself, I don't need them. Somehow you consider yourself judge about what should appear in this article (or moreover in wikipedia overall). Why wouldn't you just write your name at the end of this article (as well some others who have added those tables)? Because it's your prefered methods to compare chess players. You are making it subjective by declining real statistical data and instead keeping other statistical data according to your preference (or your thinking what should appear in wiki). Is this article place where you publish players individual best results with first achieved date in terms of rating ? That's what this table suggests - Table of top 21 rated players ever, with date their best ratings were first achieved. Frunzedz (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough—the assertion in the article that "one way to compare players of different eras is to compare their Elo ratings" is unsupported by third-party sources (indeed, it is contradicted by Elo's own opinion) and is an example of WP:OR in the same way your table would be, so I have removed it completely. You are right in insisting that we be consistent in applying our own policies. Cobblet (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

notable?

New article on Ken Smith (chess) - notable enough? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, especially considering his achievements in poker as well, although for that reason the article should be moved to Kenneth Ray Smith. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to say yes as well. There is some non-trivial coverage on him in the 1972 San Antonio tournament book that Smith participated in (finishing last, but scoring a few points, such as a draw against Keres, against top international players). Combined with the achievements in Poker that Cobblet mentioned I think notability is OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Video of Capablanca speaking English

This Chessbase article from March links to a Nederland 24 (Dutch Public Broadcasting) video of Capablanca being interviewed in English on the then-upcoming World Chess Championship 1935. Euwe is also interviewed, speaking Dutch. (Anyone who wants to hear how to pronounce "Euwe", here's your chance!) Apparently there's a wealth of chess-related video on the site, even if it's mostly in Dutch—there's a video of Euwe and Botvinnik playing blindfold blitz chess, for example. Cobblet (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I couldn't access it there, but it is also on YouTube. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

ICCF Denmark

Is ICCF Denmark needed? It is basically a list of people, and only two of them have articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that a long time ago, somebody started to fix all the redlinks in ICCF national member federations but soon gave up. A handful of these have been expanded since (I saw the US and Finland ones were) but the rest ought to be either redirected to the relevant "Chess in <country>" article or simply deleted if that article doesn't exist, as is the case with Denmark. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any point in keeping it. Too many red links to suggest any real worth or importance, particularly after being in existence for many years. Also, there is no equivalent article on the Danish Wikipedia and the only reference given is to a dead link. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few similar articles in the same situation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Chess games on Wikidata

Hi! I guess the members of this wikiproject might be interested in the following discussion on whether or not include chess games in Wikidata: [1] --DixonD (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

upper and lower case

In Queen's Gambit Accepted, an editor changed a lot of things to lower case. I reverted the edit, but he changed them back, citing the MoS. Someone please look at this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have reverted him twice now, and will stop now before I am accused of edit warring. The WP:MOSCAPS policy that Primergrey is citing is quite clear here in the WP:NAMECAPS section: "Proper names of specific places, persons, terms, etc. are capitalized in accordance with standard usage". Standard usage in chess literature for openings, as well as "White" and "Black" being used as nouns is to treat them as proper nouns that are capitalised. In contrast when "white" and "black" are being used as adjectives they are not capitalised. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

All is well. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, as long as this is being discussed, are we sure the adjective-vs.-noun criterion is the rule that works how we want? Perhaps. But is it so simple and straightforward? Can you look at these examples and confirm for me which you think is better ...

1. "Joel Benjamin was White in that game." (vs) "Joel Benjamin was white in that game."
2. "Joel Benjamin took White in that game." (vs) "Joel Benjamin took white in that game."
3. "I have Black next round." (vs) "I have black next round."
4. "The White move 1.e4 [...]" (vs) "The white move 1.e4 [...]"
5. "The best White idea in the position was Ne5." (vs) "The best white idea in the position was Ne5."
6. "Timman quickly countered White's plan." (vs) "Timman quickly countered white's plan."
7. "The White opening 1.f4 [...]" (vs) "The white opening 1.f4 [...]"

(In #6, doesn't "White's" modify word "plan" thereby it is an adjective?)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the first three cases "was", "took" and "have" are copula verbs, so "white" is an adjective and should remain uncapitalized. "Took" and "have" are colloquialisms of course and should be avoided on Wikipedia; but even "Topalov played black" is likely correct—compare the expression "to play dead", where "dead" is clearly not a noun. I haven't extensively checked the literature to see whether everyone does what I've just said, but a quick Google search of 'site:theweekinchess.com "was white"' shows that at least Mark Crowther adheres to that convention. In cases 4, 5 and 7 the latter is undoubtedly correct in my mind, but in my own writing I prefer "White's move 1.e4" and "White's best idea" to avoid any disagreement over the correct capitalization (and yes, it is a bit clearer.) In #6, clearly a player's name is being replaced ("Timman quickly countered Karpov's plan") and capitalization is necessary. Cobblet (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is a proper name like "Karpov" the determining subsitution? What if the other player was unknown, or an unnamed computer program, or a team of players with no label or title? Isn't your subsitution and conclusion therefore arbitrary? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It need not be a proper name: in that situation "White's" is replacing a noun or a noun phrase ("the Latvian radio listeners'"), so it is a noun; hence the capitalization. My conclusion is no more arbitrary than the convention itself is in the first place. (You see why this bugs copyeditors who aren't familiar with chess literature!) Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Topalov played black" is likely correct—compare the expression "to play dead", where "dead" is clearly not a noun. Again, you're picking and choosing your own substitution. Why can't the substitution be instead "to play Frankenstein"? Or "to play Santa Claus"? It seems to me that this is arbitrarily picking a substitution that is lower-case and then drawing a conclusion from it. While another conclusion can and would be drawn from a different and equally valid substitution. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, because in your two cases the meaning of the word "played" has changed: it is no longer a copula or linking verb, but a transitive verb. "Topalov played black" means "Topalov played with the black pieces", but "Topalov played Frankenstein" means "Topalov played against Frankenstein." Cobblet (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Some cases may require a few moments of thought, but I think Cobblet's answer is accurate. I also agree that the possessive "White's move" is slightly preferable to "white move", not just to avoid capitalization controversy but also because it seems a bit clearer. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I know sentences can always be rewritten and reconstructed so that a clear reference to player is created. But that is often not how players talk or write, and as a result there are many cases in articles how players talk and write. (And in many cases, like "The White opening ..." vs "The white opening" it is perfectly encyclopedic without rewriting or reconstructing.) Rewriting or reconstructing doesn't confirm or solve the issue re noun-vs.-adjective criteria, it just side-steps or dodges the criteria whether valid rule or not. If side-stepping or dodging the issue is the "rule", then we shouldn't be talking about "adjective-vs.-noun" criteria as rule. The reason I have added to this topic discussion is because the talk is about application of "noun-vs.-adjective" as the criterion or rule we s/b using for determining. Thus my examples. Saying we should dodge the issue is tantamount to saying we should delete this thread and back up to where we were before it (i.e. confusion and inconsistency). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we dodge the issue, so for every case you have provided I have given you what I believe to be the correct capitalization. That being said, any potentially disputable capitalization of "White" and "Black" is distracting to the reader and is best avoided whenever possible. Cobblet (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the decapitalized version is correct for #2 to #5 and #7, the reference is to the color of the pieces, therefore the decapitalized adjective is right. For #1, I believe that both "White" and "white" are acceptable, but that they give slightly different meanings. "Joel Benjamin was White" means Joel Benjamin was the player who is referred to as "White". "Joel Benjamin was white" means he was playing with the white pieces. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate both you guys' followups. I need to digest all the feedback details (will take time). (I got As in English, but never heard of a 'copula' verb, for e.g.! I think the WP:CHESS criterion re White-vs-white s/b simple enough so any Project members can reasonably easily apply. So I'd like to review and summarize in time, if I can. Thx again for your inputs to my examples.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope other editors will take note of this discussion, because I hope it will clear up any confusion over the issue. A strong grasp of grammar is essential for formal writing. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am loathe to criticize the conduct of two of our finest and most tireless contributors, and it's no secret that the MoS is one of the most commonly misquoted and incorrectly applied Wikipedia policies; but when a well-meaning but inexperienced editor does a copyedit, could we please have a look at the actual changes before summarily reverting them? To inadvertently throw out good fixes along with bad ones not only implies an assumption of bad faith on our part, but is detrimental to the quality of the 'pedia. Cobblet (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized that I was reverting everything, but there were a lot of cases of changing to lower case, so I thought it would be easiest to undo the whole revision. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This has happened before. The last time this nonsense came up it was User:SMcCandlish. And I agree with Bubba73. When a user makes an edit with many bad changes and a few good ones, I don't feel obligated to take heroic measures to try to rescue the small amount of satisfactory edits. Revert it and let the original editor fix his work. Quale (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree w/ Bubba and Quale (and disagree w/ Cobblet). To pick through would put an unnecessary and unfair burden on the clean-up editor. The adding editor s/ be encouraged to take responsibility and back up and re-do. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really editing here any more, I just logged in because someone e-mailed me that I've been mentioned by name recently in an blame-casting way, and upon seeing it, I feel like responding, because it was unnecessarily personalizing. Some of you should seriously think twice before you again "personalize" any style-related issues, on talk pages or in edit summaries, by finger-pointing at specific editors and/or by using hostile characterizations like "nonsense"; you may find out the hard way that WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded and WP:ARBATC#Enforcement by block can be used by zealot admins to sanction you severely for it. (I resigned from editing WP over this matter, actually, as I was falsely accused of doing this and unjustly topic-banned from all style discussion for a month, only to find that I had no effective recourse against this lone-wolf administrative abuse by an admin who harassed me for three months.) "Rouge admins" aside, WP:ARBCOM, WP:AE and WP:ANI have, starting in early 2013, gotten suddenly very serious about bringing a rain of shit down on people who, in style debates in particular, keep talking about the alleged characteristics of the editor and their intent instead of the validity and utility of the edits in a neutral and collegial manner.

Anyway, you need to separate in your mind three different issues, because they are in no way related.

1. Blanket "clobber it all!" reverting is a heavy-handed tactic, and explicity advised against by WP:REVERT, etc. It has a very strong tendency to piss people off and to lead to protracted pointless disputes that get heated beyond reason. If you do not have the time to dig through an edit of that well-meaning user's rather minimal magnitude, especially given that "the decapitalized version is correct for #2 to #5 and #7", etc., then you need to flag the edit you disagree with as a new talk page discussion and ask others to look into it, not just undo it yourself, as you do not have the attention span to exercise the kind of critical judgement and editorial care required to handle such editorial responsibility. Likely not your fault; we all have real lives, and few people can devote enormous amounts of time to such editing. However, some people can, and on major topics like chess they usually will, as evidenced by this very thread, in which the good vs. questionable edits by that editor have been sifted through in great detail, but after he/she was unnecessarily treated like vandal and then repeatedly antagonized here with wording that definitely transgresses WP:CIVIL and arguably WP:NPA, too. Why is your time and energy mystically worth more than another's? Chess-specialist editors are the ones insisting (to many other editors, quite unreasonably) on some weird exception to English grammar rules, so the onus is firmly and entirely on chess-focused editors to work around normal-English-using editors perfectly rational expectations, not the other way around. Sheesh. You are not princesses, so put your damned tiaras away and behave like adults for a change, not children playing make-believe.
2. You do not have consensus or authority to force other editors to use your non-standard capitalization, simply because chess writers like it.
   1. There is no broad consensus agreeing with [some] chess fans that things like "White" should be capitalized on Wikipedia, and MOS says not to do this sort of thing for a reason. Wikiprojects do not trump general site-wide guidelines. Specialists in any and all avocational or professional areas have a strong tendency to "big-note" things in their field by capitalizing them as a form of emphasis (technical, hobbyist, industry-specific and marketing-oriented writing are all notorious for it), and MOS actually explicitly says not to do this, across the board, at WP:MOS itself and again at the WP:MOSCAPS subpage, and has said so for years with virtually no controversy except from a highly disruptive crew of about a dozen editors in one zoological subfield. The short version is that if every field got to capitalize on WP everything they like to capitalize in their own specialist publications, virtually everything on WP would be capitalized, and WP would look like it was written by illiterates or Germans (the German language capitalizes all nouns, as English used to do, too, until the transition from what we now call Early Modern English to Modern English, partway through the Victorian era, with the practice almost totally abandoned in mainstream, formal English before 1900).
   2. All the arguments for such capitalization have been examined in detail and totally shredded. There no defensible rationale for it on Wikipedia. See the WP:SSF essay for a rather harsh deconstruction of all of the supposed reasons for trying to force any particular topical field's in-house style (e.g. chess publications) on a general purpose encyclopedia; they're simply logcally bankrupt ideas as applied to Wikipedia. It's been several years now, and no one has been able to clearly refute a single point made by that essay, and it raises about 50 of them. Game over. Drop the stick. Move on. The fact that most non-chess people and even some chess people disagree with your aggressive penchant for capitalization of in-game terms on Wikipedia, and your aggressive, snobby, snotty proselytization of this capitalization, does not make their position "nonsense", it simply means they have a difference of opinion (which they've more than adequately backed up) and they greatly outnumber you. SSF spells out really good reasons for that opposition, while your camp's arguments mostly amount to a WP:ILIKEIT stance and a sore misinterpretation of WP's "follow the sources" position (which means follow the sources on facts, not follow your preferred sources' formatting and grammar choices; WP derives it style from what mainstream sources on English writing say to do, modulo what makes sense for WP's unique needs, not what some specialist field does when their preference conflicts with normal practice and confuses our readers). Your behavior on this issue is also a clear WP:OWN problem. Chess fans do not have a magical right to control the wording and style of chess-related articles. WP:CHESS is simply some editors who agree that they want to work on chess articles, nothing more (just a "group of editors", in WP:CONSENSUS's exact words) and have no more authority than any other editor on the system. Wikiprojects really, really need to get this through their dense collective heads (and I say that as the creator of several projects! >;-) The undeniable fact that lots of people do not agree with the chess capitalization stuff, even aside from MOS having a generalized rule against that sort of thing, is the very reason some of you are so tired of the issue coming up that you fly off the handle about it and bite people's virtual faces off. Step back and think about this with heads. This undeniable fact is a clear, self-proving demonstration that you do not in fact have Wikipedia consensus to force other editors to capitalize your way. Please re-read that sentence until it sinks in. It cannot be escaped. The appropriate response is to try to reach a community-wide consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to undo the rule against using capitalization as a form of emphasis; good luck with that, or finally stop WP:BATTLEGROUNDing over it. The fact that you all know that MOS isn't going to budge on this is why you're engaging in these WP:OWN tactics that you hope no one will call you on. It's well past time to let the vast majority of Wikipedia editors write the way people normally write in the English language, not how you prefer to write on chess-specific websites for chess-player convenience.
   3. They're not proper names. One important subset of this matter is that use of "White" and "Black" or "the Queen's Gambit", capitalized like that, in chess writing is emphatically not an example of the establishment and use of proper names, but of specialists capitalizing certain important and conventional things to emphasize them because they like to do so as a reading aid. Period. If you think it's proper-naming, you need to take a linguistics class. Seriously, most of you have no idea what you're talking about at all on this; just the fact that a substantial portion of the above material is a bunch of confused noise about whether something should be capitalized based on whether it's a noun or an adjective demonstrates this clearly. (Hint: proper names are always capitalized in English regardless what grammatical role they're playing, i.e. what "part of speech" they are in elementary school terms – we don't write "Texas" but then switch to "texan" or "texas-related"! Some languages, including Spanish and French, do this, but not English.) "George Washington" is a proper name. "Final Fantasy IV" is a proper name. "The Chicago Bears" is proper name. "Azerbaijan" is a proper name. "Azerbaijani" is proper name in derived adjectival form. Learn this, know it, feel it. Simple designation of one of two or more items or sets of generic game equipment or of generic competitors, sides or positions in a game, is not a proper name. We do not capitalize stripes and solids in pool, nor the neutral position, offensive referee's position and defensive referee's position in collegiate wrestling, nor offense/offensive and defense/defensive in any form of football or similar game, nor serving and receiving in tennis, etc., etc., etc., ad nausem, throughout the entire world of sports and games. The same goes for specific sequences of moves like "the queen's gambit". Yes, we all know chess books like to capitalize this. Football books like to capitalize well-known plays, but we do not do it here. Skater mags capitalize skateboarding tricks, but we do not do it here. I can spit out examples like this all day long. Types of shots in billiards are often capitalized in pool and snooker publications, but we do not do it here. Shall I can continue? As far as I can determine, the only camp on Wikipedia who still persist in the patent delusion that the terminology used in their game is a special snowflake unlike all the other terms in all the other games in the history of the world, are certain chess editors who pretend they cannot understand that Wikipedia is not a chess specialist publication and does not have any sane reason to force chess subculture quirks on people who are not among the 0.01% of WP readers who are hardcore chess aficionados. Even the card games projects who were doing this have dropped that "nonsense" (how do you like your preferences being called that?); see the usage at, e.g. Texas Hold'em, where no one is trying to capitalize things like "royal flush", "ace", "spades" and "the turn" any longer. It's just you. It's the very definition of WP:TE, a shining, stellar textbook case of doggedly persistent, disruptive, possessive, filibustering obstructionism. Get over yourselves and your petty "we're going to win at all costs because we're Right" obsession that is distracting you from actually making the encyclopedia better for people other than you, meanwhile making it very, very hard for other people to do so on these articles either and hounding them away with hostility. Having a preference to capitalize here is not "nonsense" and it's not fair to you to call it that; it's simply based on incorrect assumptions and interpretations of linguistic facts, of the purpose of capitalization of such terms in specialist publication, of how WP operates in regard to style vs. facts in external sources, how consensus works here, what wikiprojects are and how much authority they have (hint: zero), etc. Arriving here initially from chess circles with a preferences for capitalizing because you're used to it isn't "obsessive", either. It's to be expected. Going on a years-long hateful warpath about it is really, really damned obsessive however. Preferring not to capitalize here isn't "nonsense" either, they way some of you labelled it. It's following site-wide consensus at MOS to refrain from abusing capitalization for emphasis, to write plain English, to not violate WP:NPOV by forcing weird style quirks from one minority sector onto all editors, and to not violate the KISS principle and principle of least astonishment, i.e. to abide by the consensus to avoid confusing our majority, non-specialist readers. NB: This all goes far beyond sports and games. For example, the majority of music and pop-culture magazines capitalize the names of genres of music and film/television, but we do not do it here, because we know it's grammatically dicey and it leads to too many problems, rampant capitalization of all sorts of other things chief among them. There was a time only a few years ago when there was seriously a proposal on the table here to capitalize things like Armadillo. I shit you not. I don't mean the article title, I mean in constructions like "He ran over an Armadillo and a Dog the same day". Allowing one topic area to abuse capitalization (or hyphenation or whatever), to appease tendentious editors, who won't stop beating the dead horse or agree to just drop it, leads to editorial chaos again and again in short order. This happens inevitably because, say, 1 out of 10 people who read Wikipedia want to change something it or add something to it now and again, and 1 out of 50 want to become at least semi-regular editors, but maybe only 1 out of 1000 are linguists, professional editors, English teachers, or other grammarians by training and deep experience. Consequently, lack of grammatical and stylistic expertise (for a general audience, not the hobbyist publications you focus on as chess nuts) combined with an earnest desire to follow perceived Wikipedia writing norms, leads to people seeing Important Things Capitalized Because They're Important in articles withing the scope of some "capitalize or die!" camp's, and they start doing it elsewhere, mimicking the pseudo-convention they've run across. It's happened here again and again for years. Enough already.
3. BRD can be a valid approach, but it was certainly not taken here. All the above said, WP:BRD is also a well-established process, and a revert is not necessarily totally unjustifiable, if one somehow accepts the notion that whether or not to capitalize "White" and "Black" in chess articles is actually an unsettled matter, that somehow chess is utterly exempt from MOS (it's not; there is no such thing as a "local consensus", e.g. at a wikiproject or an article talk page, that trumps a broader site-wide consensus – this has not only be affirmatively decided by ARBCOM on the basis of WP:CONSENSUS and other policies as then written, this "wikicaselaw" was explicitly codified as new policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, several years ago. But let's just pretend for a moment that a case can be made that lower-casing these words might actually have been questionable. BRD could be cited, and the change reverted, even perhaps at the cost of the unquestionably good parts of the complex edit. It just has to be done with the message that the revert is provisional, that good faith was assumed, that the edit raised questions that need to be resolved on the talk page, and that the editor is asked to explain the edit and its rationales. But that didn't happen here. Some chess editors feel they have the right to act with righteous retribution, and dismissive assumptions that anyone who isn't aware of or who disagrees with their "convention" is necessarily stupid or a chess-hating troll. The message you actually sent was, basically, "go fuck yourself and your nonsense, and while we're ranting go fuck SMcCandlish too (now that we don't think he's here to defend himself any more), and fuck anyone else who dares to mess with our pages and contradicts our God-given Holy Style Rules of Chess." It's extremely off-putting to any well-meaning reader-editor who expects, and edits to help ensure, that WP articles with follow basic English grammar rules, not oddball, made-up preferences no one but chess fans follow in their own rarefied books. It makes you like unhinged, obsessive jerks who are not here to write an encyclopedia, but to hijack it to advance some weird agenda. It's totally unreasonable to react with blatant, flippant, even jaded and eye-rolling dismissive hostility to people who cannot sanely be expected to have somehow guessed that you are pushing a style convention from specialist publications, despite MOS saying not to capitalize like this. If could be too harsh to say "you should be ashamed of yourselves", but you definitely need to rethink your approach here, both behaviorally and goal-wise. If that and the rest seem "personalizing" to you, a) you deserve it, and at least two of you know I definitely mean you, and b) I don't work here any more, so I don't care, and you are not newbies so you're not immune to be bitten or trouted. I really don't like being finger-pointed at, behind my back, as some kind of editorial "nonsense"-monger, by people trying to push illegitimate agendas that violate consensus and multiple guidelines and policies, and to have this happen in the course of your verbally abusing another editor and trying to make your obsessive soapbox matter his/her problem instead of yours. You're being grossly tendentious, disruptive and dickish, and you damned well know it. Ultimately, if it's really so important to you to capitalize these words that you'd threaten to go on editorial strike or quit the project over it, as a few zoological editors once did, you're sorely, sorely confused about why you are here at all, and need to read WP:NOTHERE, WP:5THWHEEL and WP:DIVA. Also, anyone who responds with "TL;DR" and keeps on being a tendentious twit on this issue needs to go find another hobby, because anyone who cannot handle 6 or 7 paragraphs of very clearly written text is simply not competent to work on an encyclopedia-editing project, sorry.

I'm logging back off and leaving WP again, so feel free to whack away, fap fap fap, at whatever straw man you'll likely erect in response to this in my absence. The fact that I will come out of wikiretirement and return to this ethically foundering project to run logic and moral-high-ground circles around people who drag my (real) name through the mud, in their petty attempts to make aggressive but invalid points against other editors and shamelessly drive them away, should probably be interpreted as a strong indication that I'm a poor target for such tactics. I have enough friends here with my e-mail address that doing so is unlikely to go unnoticed and unaddressed. Let sleeping dogs lie, and expect to get barked at if you keep kicking them. Way more importantly, quit abusing the good faith and intentions of other editors just to run your tinpot fiefdom, and think about the good of the project and its readers instead of what you like for your oh-so-precious chess fan reasons. No one else gives a damn, seriously. You must understand this by now. You've been acting no better than the Pokemon fanwankers and other devotee in-crowds who keep trying to turn large swaths of Wikipedia into Trekkie-pedia and Soccer-pedia and Tolkien-pedia and Progressivism-pedia, and against whom the community has had to write new essays and guidelines against trivia, in-universe writing, etc. There's already one against what you're doing, at WP:Specialist style fallacy. This is not your encyclopedia and chess articles, they're all of ours. I may not work on WP directly any more, but I still depend on it as a utility, and I still will speak up when I have a stake in its future being more free of abuse by special interests. "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 20:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha! You're a fine piece of work. Cobblet (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

He's still a childish, thin-skinned, pretentious twit. Wikipedia will certainly miss him. Quale (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I liked the argument that body parts like "knees" aren't capitalized just like "human body" isn't capitalized (of which knees are a part), and similarly since "chess" isn't capitalized then neither s/ Queen's Gambit be. (Do ya think he still thinks that? If the article title went his way and got moved to "Queen's gambit", would that mean the acronymns are now "Qga" & "Qgd" "qga" & "qgd"?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is beside the point, but I would say that the acronyms "QGA", "QGD", "KID" and so forth are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

They are in Glossary of chess, and the glossary is on WP. (Do you suggest to remove from the glossary?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, just that one should not expect anyone to have to repeatedly consult said glossary while reading a chess article on Wikipedia. Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Out-of-context. 100 percent of the time any of those acronyms are used in chess articles, they are either pre-defined (longer names given first ala MoS), or wlink'd. (So no glossary consultation is needed, let alone "repeated" ones. (The only reason the topic of glossary was introduced, is that you suggested banishing those acronyms from WP, and I asked for clarification if that meant from the glossary as well.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant to say that such acronyms are in my opinion inconsistent with writing in a formal encyclopedic tone, and unnecessary in a medium with no space constraints. I'm happy they appear in the glossary. Cobblet (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. (They're in common use in articles; perhaps you want to propose they be not used. For me, I think they are part of the chess lexicon [found in book titles, etc.] and along with longer-form specification and wlink's to respective articles can't be inappropriate. But whatever -- consensus may be different & I'll go w/ consensus; but we won't know consensus unless you make proposal, etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I found in MOS that acronyms based on lower-case words are still in caps. (So I was wrong about "qga", etc. -- it'd still be QGA & QGD even if it were "queen's gambit accepted/declined".) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

At last, this project gets bombarded with some waffle. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

First, I do not refer to any person as a "twit" on Wikipedia. There is no need to enter into a mud-slinging match if your view on the matter has all the objective merits. However, I understand that the posting, much of it a rant against the chess WikiProject, is outright provocative and will attract that sort of response. The style of the writing in SMcCandlish's post makes it difficult to glean what the substantial arguments are, but I think I identified one that probably deserves an answer. It is the assertion that terms such as "Queen's Gambit Declined" are not treated as proper names outside specialist chess literature, and that the capitalization is only a style convention used by specialists. That is incorrect. Mainstream literature (by this I mean literature that is not specialized into chess) discussing these terms are rare, but those that I found, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, also follow this capitalization. And for good reason, "Queen's Gambit Declined" is the name of a specific chess opening. "Queen's gambit declined" says that something was declined by a gambit belonging to the queen. So treating them as proper names appears standard even outside of chess literature, and normal English grammar for proper names is to capitalize each word in the name. This is analogous to writing "Royal Air Force" (the name of a specific air force, referring to the British one) instead of "royal air force" which could be any air force with ties to royalty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I greatly respect that you do not refer to any person as a twit, but this individual is made a twit by his own actions on Wikipedia, not by what I write. Of course that suggests that there was no need for me to write it, and that is true. (Maybe writing it makes me a twit as well.) His arguments were refuted six years ago on Talk:Queen's Gambit, and neither the argument nor the arguer have become any more appealing in the years since. But you are of course right about the technical question, and your approach to the social challenge is more wise than mine as well. Quale (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Having seen SMcCandlish's post for a few hours before I responded to it gives me an advantage. It is a little arrogant of me to be critical of those who react to it in a more forceful manner.

Still, in most cases of clear misbehavior (and accusing us of "clobber it all" mentality, implying that we are too stupid to understand English, and casting aspersions of us being "grossly tendentious, disruptive and dickish" are all examples of misbehavior), a minimally firm but formally polite response is often quite adequate. It makes it instantly clear to any casual outsider who is being disruptive if any characterizations are being made by one side only. Usually people who behave with rants and casting of aspersions here, behave that way elsewhere too, and that type of behavior slowly erodes their support within the community. At some point the remaining support is far too weak and uninspired for them to avoid severe sanctions when the history of all past behavior is brought up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

On our other favourite bug-a-boos

p.s. This issue has been a bug-a-boo. (p.s. There are many others, too, but let's not talk about them in this context, because the thread will get too long and it will give everyone a headache. For example, when do we capitalize 'Grandmaster', and when don't we? And is it 'Nimzo–Indian' or 'Nimzo-Indian' [and why?]? And does everyone agree we should use one notation in articles [abbreviated algebraic], and that "Black's push b7–b5" is consistent w/ that, but "b7-b5" is longhand notation and therefore introducing a second & different notation into the same article which is not the best way? And how about a final deal on '0-0-0' (vs) 'O-O-O'? And ditto for +5 −3 =2 (vs) +5 =2 −3. Ditto ½ (vs) .5 And how about picking one or two from 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v' instead of using all of 'em? And ... [OK, I agree, quite enough!].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that project-wide conventions should be established for such situations. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer ½ instead of .5 because (1) the result is either a whole point or has a half point. (You can't score 5.3.) And (2) few people speak that way, e.g. people rarely say "he scored seven point five points"; more likely they say "he scored seven and a half points". In the body of the article, I prefer "versus" (a period looks like the end of a sentence). In a diagram I prefer "vs.". I don't like a hyphen between the names of the two competitors because it can be confused with a hyphenated name - see an edit to wrong bishop within the last few days. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re ½ (vs) .5, I agree obviously and there was a decent discussion on options here, I just think that convention oughta be added to the other edit conventions spelled out on the WP:CHESS project page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v', I agree "vs." is best, but IMO use of "versus" ought to be reserved for text intended for reading, e.g. "The top board would again feature man versus machine." In section names (TOCs) I don't like "versus" spelled out, that suggests reading text for meaning, when only a game identification is the purpose. (So either "–" or "vs." when referencing a game. Ditto for article names, where I'd prefer "vs.". I'm not sure about dispensing with "–", however, since so many sources use that, e.g. ECOs, Hooper/Whyld, etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See the confusion at wrong bishop that was corrected 2 or 3 days ago. The source (BCE) says "Guretzky-Cornitz", and it looks just like "Euwe-Fine". Someone (it could have been me) thought that it was Guretzky vs. Cornitz when it is actually a hyphenated name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was your blooper [2], but, I'm not sure that seldom-occurring confusion s/b the basis for editing convention (maybe it should!?). Reading is king: what the Project wants readers to see/read (no matter how confusing for editors to get there). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to think of the readers rather than the editors. I think it is clearer to read "versus" or "vs." than the hyphen, since the hyphen sometimes indicates a hyphenated name. And some readers won't know that the hyphen usually means "versus". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso brought up seven issues to discuss. My opinion is that we should first try to follow WP:MOS as much as possible, and if it doesn't offer us any guidance, examine common practice in the chess literature. I haven't read any of the previous discussion I assume we've had on these issues (although I've noticed the monster in the closet, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation) and if my thoughts conflict with the general consensus please point them out. But these are my views anyway on the less complex issues (the algebraic notation discussion is tricky and I don't want to start it):

If there won't be discussion and consensus to put into WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white', then the kind of passion around '0-0-0 (vs) O-O-O', as shown by an earlier thread, along with commensurate reverts & re-reverts at articles based on personal preference, will just have a basis to continue indefinitely. Also there s/b one chess notation, not two, in an article. "Black will reroute his knight Nc6–b8–d7" clearly invokes MOS:NDASH where the endash translates to "to". (That example is no different in kind to the earlier example "Black will push his pawn b7–b5.") I don't see any active discussion yet, so there cannot be any new WP:CHESS conventions set without consensus, and limited participation means no consensus. Last, the view that these convention issues don't matter as long as each article is internally consistent, I think is faulty for at least three reasons (probably more) if you think about it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess titles

I believe chess titles should be treated in exactly the way we treat other titles such as "Doctor". Capitalize them only when used as an honorific and use lower case in all other situations: "The book was reviewed by International Master John Watson", but "The book was reviewed by the American international master John Watson", or "He beat Grandmasters Adianto and Paragua" but "He beat two grandmasters". And just as one does not usually write out "Miss" or "Mister", titles should be abbreviated when used as a honorific (IM, GMs in the previous examples). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of self-constructions that make solutions look all-too-easy to apply (same as the 'White/white' issue), we should look at how these are actually used in articles. In articles there are countless uses of Grandmaster/grandmaster preceeded by a country identification, like this: "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen." And there are countless uses in chess BLPs beginning like this: "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster." Back in February I asked talented WP writer-editor Khazar2 for his input, it's in his Talk Archive 7, so I'll copy/paste that dialogue here:

When should "Grandmaster" be cap'd, and when shouldn't it? ("A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian Grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich", vs. "A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich"; "I want to introduce you folks to Grandmaster Nakamura" vs. "... to grandmaster Nakamura"; "After success in qualifying matches x, y, z, so_and_so was awarded the FIDE title of Grandmaster"; "There were several grandmasters attending the Mainz Open", etc. (It seems to me s/ be cap'd when referring specifically to the title itself, or used as title appended before a name, but otherwise, lower-case. Is that right?!) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a quick Google check suggests that the New York Times and BBC don't capitalize it in any instance: [3][4][5] I would follow their lead until someone points out a specific Wikipedia MOS guideline that demands otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the usage I suggested is consistent with the usage you suggested to Khazar2, and that usage is also consistent with all but one of the search results Khazar2 found, so I wouldn't be so bold as to call it my own invention. I doubt in this case we'll find uniform consistency within the literature either (am I right in surmising from the entry on Michael Adams that the Oxford Companion always capitalizes titles without exception?), which is why I'm suggesting a method that is exactly analogous to other conventions surrounding honorifics and capitalization in English. If we've got military ranks listed on the table at the end of MOS:ABBR, I think it would be logical to add chess titles there as well.

Let me turn the question around: why should this Wikiproject adopt a standard on chess titles that's different from the convention applied to any other honorific in English? Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess WP:JOBTITLE also applies here. If I read it correctly it suggests that we would write "Grandmaster Carlsen" but "Magnus Carlsen is a Norwegian grandmaster", which seems right to me. I don't think grandmaster should always be capitalized, but never capitalizing it might lead to irregularities especially when compared to lesser titles. Some such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master look odd when not capitalized (FIDE master and candidate master), and International Master, Woman International Master, and Woman Grandmaster are potentially ambiguous and confusing when not in caps. If we wrote "Irina Krush is a woman grandmaster", would our readers interpret that as Krush is a WGM or would they read it as saying that GM Krush is a woman? Probably it would be best to avoid those potentially ambiguous constructions and use a different wording. Quale (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:JOBTITLE expresses exactly what I mean to say regarding capitalization. Thanks for pointing it out. I agree that the potentially ambiguous constructions you mentioned are to be avoided. Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Although being a grandmaster is not really an occupation, I think WP:JOBTITLE is the closest analogy we have, so I agree with the others above me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the same considerations apply to "World Champion" or "Russian Champion", where we might write "World Champion Anand" and "Anand is world champion", etc. Quale (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So what about these (very common article) examples then?:

From the Bobby Fischer article (I'm wondering if absense/presence of definite article "the" is impacting):

1. "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen."
2. "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board this youth, [...].'"
3. "[...] Fischer was set to play against Soviet grandmaster and concert pianist Mark Taimanov in the quarter-finals."
4. "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman calls Fischer's victory 'the story of a lonely hero [...].'"
5. "[...] Fischer stayed for extended periods in the San Francisco-area home of a friend, the Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas."
6. "He resided in the same compound as the Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, [...]."
7. "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević called Fischer, 'A man without frontiers. [...]'"
8. "The U.S. grandmaster Robert Byrne labeled the phenomenon 'Fischer-fear'."

The "the" makes all the difference, as you suspected: capitalize 1, 3, 4 and 7. Replace "grandmaster" with "king" or "president" and ask yourself if you would capitalize the latter two words in the same position. I should comment though that there is no reason to refer to someone's nationality or chess title if neither has any direct relevance to the text: you don't expect an article on Stephen Hawking's career, for example, to refer to all the people around him as "Dr. Roger Penrose", "Mr. Robert Graves", "the English professor Fred Hoyle", "his Indian student Dr. Jayant Narlikar", etc. That Taimanov was a concert pianist is particularly irrelevant to his quarterfinal match against Fischer. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of good writing whether the national qualifiers like "Danish", or "concertmaster" should or shouldn't be appended is really a side issue and discussion of same only serves to take us off topic (i.e. when to cap or not cap Grandmaster/grandmaster). (BTW as long as you have brought up the poor writing of including those qualifiers, I now have to say that I as editor did not add any of those qualifiers in any of the examples listed. Neither did I add "concertmaster". But again, talking about it takes us off point.) I agree with all of your prescriptions above (that 1, 3, 4, and 7 s/b cap; 2, 5, 6, and 8 s/b lower-case). However, I have two Qs on my mind about these examples ... Q1) Does everyone see and agree then, that as far as cap vs. lower-case goes, we essentially have a critical difference between the following two sentences? "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'", and, "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'"? Q2) We've agreed what is correct is "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" OK. But let's modify the sentence a bit. How? By using "GM" instead. So we have: "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board [...].'" Is there anything wrong with that sentence? I presume there isn't. And is "GM" in that sentence "honorific". I presume it is. So if "GM" is honorific in that sentence, how could substitution of the word GM represents, suddenly make the substituted word not honorific (and therefore demand lower-case)?! (And I guess this raises a question too, you mentioned earlier if I remember, you felt "Grandmaster" and "grandmaster" s/ not be spelled out in articles and "GM" s/b used instead. Have you dropped that position? [Because if we are not to use "Grandmaster" or "grandmaster" in articles, then the whole discussion as to when to cap and when to use lower-case is of course irrelevant.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought I realized abbreviations like "GM" would likely be unfamiliar to the general reader so I'm no longer convinced it's a good idea. I brought up the needlessness of mentioning titles because I agree that it would look strange if a page was full of capitalized titles like "Grandmaster": my point is that this should not be an issue because the titles themselves should be used sparingly. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's great. But what about my Q1 & Q2? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about this one, it isn't "honorific" use, but makes direct reference to the title as a title:

1. "[...] he finished tied for third with Borislav Ivkov, half a point behind tournament winners Ludek Pachman and Miguel Najdorf; this confirmed his status as a grandmaster."

And in many article introductions this pattern:

1. "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster."

And these (are indefinite article "a" and definite article "the" impacting?):

1. "Garry Kimovich Kasparov is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer [...]."
2. "Robert James "Bobby" Fischer was an American chess grandmaster and the eleventh World Chess Champion."

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No capitalization in the last four examples. In the last two examples "world chess champion" also should not be capitalized. Sorry, that's not right: in the third case "a former world chess champion" is correct because "world chess champion" is a common noun (it refers to world chess champions in general) but in the last case "World Chess Champion" is correct because it is a proper noun (it refers only to Fischer). Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is confusing. Why does the Kasparov example have to be interpreted as a common noun? WP:JOBTITLE says: When the correct formal title is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France [...]). So, presumably this is okay: "Louis XVI was a former King of France [...]". And if that is okay, then why isn't this okay: "Garry Kasparov is [...] a former World Chess Champion"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't correct to write "Louis XVI was a former King of France" to express the meaning "Louis XVI was a former French king". I'll answer why this is so on your talk page tomorrow, but right now I need sleep. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need sleep too. I can see you're probably right. (Poor Kasparov ... He'll have "former world chess champion" in his article lead, while Fischer will have "eleventh World Chess Champion" in his. I agree this seems correct though.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right. It seems to me (correct me if I'm not right) you are using a simple guideline: "Cap 'Grandmaster' and 'World Champion' only if they are used honorifically, and honorific use occurs only when immediately in front of a person's name, as that person's title." But what about cases where the title is being referred to as a title, e.g., "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of Grandmaster." (The other alternative would be: "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of grandmaster.") Ditto "World Champion". (Are you with me?) We need a more comprehensive guide than simply "honorific, appended before a name". (It is easy enough to construct simple cases as Quale did above, and think they explain a convention comprehensively, when they don't. [And when they don't, it leads to confused and inconsistent application in articles, which caused this thread sub-part to be opened originally. So if we leave the discussion to apparently simple conclusions that aren't comprehensive, we think we solved the problem, we didn't, and this whole discussion is wasted, we end up with continued inconsistent uses in articles without resolution, and we end up right back here again in future. That is why I like to rely on real-article examples, or if I make up examples, to illustrate how an over-simplified rule can be deceptive, by being inadequate in solving the original problems that caused a discussion to occur in the first place.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

In which of the previous four cases do you think capitalization of "grandmaster" and "world chess champion" should occur? Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, can we have logical order to this discussion, if we will have one? Do you or don't you grant that "Grandmaster" might be rightly capitalized when referring to the title as a title, in the example I've given? (Your questions are out of context, and I cannot answer them, without knowing your answers to my good-faith Qs above. This is not a contest of wits, or tricks or traps. If there's something illogical about my line of reasoning then just point it out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Since you've dropped idea of using "GM" in place of the spelled out words, I presume using "GM" would also be an alternative editors could use, since it can simply be wiki-linked to the same article "Grandmaster" is wiki-linked to. So therefore it is not wrong to introduce question how GM compares with it substituted value "Grandmaster" or "grandmaster", and when substituted, where is the consistency re honorific or not. (I suppose by asking these questions I'm a trouble-maker who deserves to be blocked!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was only asking because I wanted to understand exactly what it was that you were confused over. I think my answers are consistent with WP:JOBTITLES, which everyone seems satisfied with as the guideline to use in this case. I don't want to clutter up this page with a two-person conversation, so I'll answer your previous questions in depth on your talk page. Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of "Grandmaster" being referred to as a title (there are many more), from article Raymond Keene:

• "In 1976 he became the second Englishman, following Tony Miles, to be awarded the Grandmaster title."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Decapitalize. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another from article Tony Miles:

• "He learned the game of chess early in life and made good progress nationally, taking the titles of British under-14 Champion and under-21 Champion in 1968[1] and 1971, respectively."
  • Capitalize "Under" as well, I think. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) From Grandmaster (chess) (first two lead sentences):

• "The title Grandmaster is awarded to chess players by the world chess organization FIDE. Apart from World Champion, Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The capitalization is all correct here. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes in opening names

WP:NDASH is quite clear on when to use en dashes. In cases where the two words are independent elements and the meaning of the punctuation is "and", an en dash is indicated: Smith–Morra Gambit, Caro–Kann Defence, Richter–Veresov Attack (which means we need to move Richter-Veresov Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation). When this is not the case, a hyphen is used: Semi-Slav Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence (short for Nimzowitsch's Indian Defence—"Nimzowitsch's" modifies "Indian" so the two are not independent), Neo-Grünfeld. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that "Nimzo-Indian" is short for "Nimzowitsch's Indian"? Why couldn't that name equally be a combination of two terms "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence"? I really think you show a pattern, here and elsewhere, to make your own substitution choices, and then draw conclusions from them. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I distinctly recall having said somewhere that "these are my views", and I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. No, I can't find a source that explicitly says that, but I have evidence that that is what the phrase was intended to mean when it was first invented. But let me point out one other thing first:

1. With words that are not player names, the term "Indian Defence" is never used to form a compound in the way you describe. The term "Caro–Kann Defence" means "Caro and Kann's Defence", or equivalently, "the defence attributed to Caro and Kann". But the term "Old Indian Defence" does not mean "the defence attributed to Old and Indian", which makes no sense; instead, the meaning here is "the old variation of the Indian Defence". "Old" and "Indian" are not independent elements: the latter is part of "Indian Defence", which the former modifies. This is even more obvious in the case of "King's Indian Defence" and "Queen's Indian Defence".
2. Edward Winter shows in item 3712 that the idea of blending the words Nimzowitsch and Indian first occurred in German: "Nimzoindisch" first appeared in print in 1931, while the first use of "Nimzo-Indian" dates to 1935 according to the OED. Back then, the Indian ("Indisch") was thought of as a single opening (and not a group of openings, as it is now), and when 3...Bb4 was first mentioned in print it was called ‘La “Variante de Nimzowitch”’ in French, not "La Défense de Nimzowitsch". Kmoch's quote in German in the last sentence of Winter's article also refers to it as a variation. This implies that when the German "Nimzoindisch" and the English "Nimzo-Indian" were coined, it was unlikely to have been meant as an amalgamation of "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence", as you suggested (which would be strange, since the former is the totally unrelated 1.e4 Nc6), but as a contraction of "Nimzowitsch's variation of the Indian Defence". That the unhyphenated blend "Nimzoindian" occasionally occurs in the older English literature (e.g. item 7677) is further evidence that the English and German terms are linguistically related. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking "Nimzowitch" might refer to 1.e4 Nc6, rather some line of his in the QP opening. Anyway you've convinced me, thx for all that research. (I also found this at MOS:NDASH but don't know if it applies: Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry.) Anyway I need to access a tool to do mass changes to undo all the damage I've done mistenly thinking Nimzo–Indian was correct. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

W/L/D records

I couldn't find any convention on Wikipedia for this, but I note that Template:Infobox boxer lists draws after wins and losses, and most articles on boxers seem to follow this convention in text and in headings. I haven't seen examples of them using the (+5 –2 =3) notation though. Checking the literature, Kasparov in My Great Predecessors (Everyman) seems to consistently list losses before draws (although he's the only person I've seen who doesn't use spaces—I take it we prefer to). It's surprisingly difficult to find examples of this notation in other books—I found one instance in Sanakoev's World Champion at the Third Attempt (Gambit 1999, p. 59) where it's losses before draws and one in Palliser's The Modern Benoni Revealed (Batsford 2005, p. 26) where it's draws before losses. That's three different conventions in three books by different publishers—not very helpful. But it does seem that listing losses before draws is a bit more common, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I suggest we stick to that. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I agree. The proposal is to actually add it to WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white' so there is a basis for keeping articles consistent over different editors' personal preferences. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that's what we're aiming for. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like putting draws after losses. A draw is a result between a win and a loss, so the logical place for draws should be the middle, at least if using an abbreviated format instead of writing it out with words. Looking a bit wider than just chess, I think sports league tables in Europe tend to use a win-draw-loss format, while those in America use win-loss-draw. (Compare for example tables for football in England with those in in America). Not a very big issue though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a "gray scale chart". A reader reading for meaning or pertinent information is interested in wins & losses, not draws. (Draws don't determine how a player did in a match. In addition there are matches where drawns don't count for anything, only wins, so in those cases drawns can be considered to not even exist and so have zero relevance. So on that basis putting the irrelevant draw count between the relevant win and relevant loss figures ends up unhelpful and even distracting and obscuring the pertinent information for a reader wanting quickly to ascertain the match result. The more important informations should appear first. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to emphasize the solidity of players such as Schlechter, Petrosian and Leko, the draw count may well be more interesting than the number of losses. It's a matter of personal opinion (you like using this argument, so I'll use it too!) which you think is more important. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

After all the talk about draws being the death of chess in the last decades, you argue that draw counts might be more interesting to some readers? Based on their interest in certain players' styles? OK that accounts for like 1% or less of readers, so we should set a convention based on that argument? And it isn't my opinion, it's Bobby Fischer's. (His advocacy for matches where drawns don't count. To make chess matches interesting again, and to give spectators what they are paying for.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact that it is very difficult to find instances of this notation even within specialist chess literature (you can try yourself as I did) suggests that the average reader is unlikely to understand what it means. I agree with the notion that Wikipedia pages should be made as accessible to the average reader as possible, and while writing about chess moves without using algebraic notation is virtually impossible, I think it's a bad idea to place an additional burden on readers by expecting them to know that "+" not only means "check" but also "win" in this case; that "−" means "loss"; and that "=" means "draw". Is it really so difficult to just write out the words? As for the order, whether written out or not, in view of Sjakkalle's point I'm going to go back on my previous opinion and suggest that either is acceptable as long as consistency is maintained within an article. Cobblet (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The +=- notation is used in the Oxford Companion, which is a specialist encyclopedia on chess. I am probably guilty of using the shorthand notation myself (due to laziness), but I agree with you that writing out the result in words is probably best for a general purpose encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the logic that using two different WLD orders is fine as long as consistent within an article. (Based on that logic, then what objection would there be allowing descriptive notation in addition to algebraic notation as long as the notation choice is consistent within an article? On what basis do you contend consistent across all articles is desirable for notation, but not for WLD records?) I also disagree with the the view (+ − =) or (+ = −) are too specialized for chess articles and should be replaced with words. We don't replace # with word "mate" or "checkmate". And we don't spell out "draw" to replace ½–½, or spell out "White wins" to replace 1–0. Is there really a solid distinction that permits accepting symbols for applications in one set of circumstance, but not another, other than personal preference? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because to allow the use of descriptive notation would only place an additional burden on both readers without a chess background and readers with a chess background who were born after the last book in descriptive notation was published. (I'd be surprised if one such book has been published in the last thirty years.) It is absolutely reasonable to agree on one system on notation for Wikipedia. If you feel equally strongly about standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses when written out in words as you do about standardizing algebraic notation, I will point out that the former is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. YMMV.

That there is a difference in the prevalence between the +/-/= notation and symbols such as # or 1-0 is most clearly illustrated in Algebraic notation (chess), where the last two symbols are explained but the former notation is not. And I challenge you to find one example of a discussion of algebraic notation where the +/-/= notation is explained. (Is it even explained at all in the Oxford Companion? It isn't in the entry on "standard notation".) I'll also point out that symbols such as # and ½ are prescribed in the FIDE Handbook, while the +/-/= notation is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I can tell. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

[...] standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses [...] is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. No. It is simply in the interest of seeing consistency across chess articles. (Look in The Oxford Companion -- Hooper/Whyld use one order in all their encyclopedia entries that express WLD. If they used two orders scattered randomly through their book, that would have been unprofessional and messy, so they didn't do that. Ditto Encyclopedia Britannica if they are worth their salt. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion (Fischer was talking about match formats, not notation) is no more relevant to this discussion than the personal opinions of Sjakkalle and myself. I don't care very much about the issue of ordering draws and losses, and neither Sjakkalle nor anyone else seem to, so if you want a convention, we can have one. The real issue is whether we should be using the +/-/= notation at all: Sjakkalle and I have both expressed reservations about it. How do you feel about it now? Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I care more about that there is consistency re order (WLD OR WDL), just like The Oxford Companion has consistency re order and not a messy mix of orders throughout their encyclopedia, than whether the order is WLD or WDL. But an editor gave an argument "a draw is between a win and a loss so therefore it is logical that it should be in the middle" and I didn't want that to go unchallenged since I think wins & losses are more relevant to what readers are probably seeking and therefore we should give them that rather than making it more difficult to pick out. But I am fine with WDL order since Hooper/Whyld picked that order for their book. As far as spelling out the words instead of (+ − =), I prefer the compactness of the symbols, as the match record is just to give data, and introducing words suggests it's readable-for-meaning text akin to specifying "versus" were only "vs." is necessary in indentifying a game. As food for thought, the symbol definitions could be put in an article akin to Chess punctuation; or that article could be renamed and expanded; or the symbol definitions could be put in the Glossary of chess; or a template could be written something like {{WLD|5|2|3}} to produce (+5 −2 =3). (I kinda like that idea actually, for e.g. applying it on the first occurrence of WLD in an article to give indication how to interpret the symbols and so repeat underlining doesn't make a blight for the article. I also agree w/ Quale [below] that the symbols are so intuitive that Hooper/Whyld probably figured they didn't need explanation, so again a single use of the proposed WLD template seems to me to be the right balance. [I wouldn't know about it supporting visually impaired readers, however.]) Again these are just ideas, I'm willing to accept words instead of symbols if there is Proj consensus for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Cobblet is right that the +W−L=D notation is not explained very often anywhere, although that might also suggest that it is thought to be pretty easy to understand even without explanation. I think writing 5 wins, 4 loses and 7 draws, and the like repeatedly in an article might be pretty tedious to read. It might just be me, but I can read +5 −4 =7 much more quickly than the expanded text. I am sympathetic to the concern that the notation isn't understandable to the general reader, so if the project decides that we should write it out I am fine with that. As long as wins come first, the WLD or WDL order is consistent within an article and a minus sign is used instead of a hyphen, I don't care whether the order is consistent across the entire project. If we decide we should standardize on the order, I will respect it. Quale (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The template was at least a cute idea, but it makes me think: articles on players of other individual sports like tennis and boxing get nicely formatted tables at the end summarizing their tournament and match records. Why not for chess? At a stroke we'd eliminate the need for such a notation and the articles would look a lot cleaner as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notating draws

Definitely 8½ and not 8.5, since this is the convention used in every book I checked, and it also applies to game results: ½–½, not 0.5–0.5. (And use en dashes for game and match results, per NDASH.) Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and per this discussion at Talk:Boris Spassky, where also I brought up MoS accessability issue with ½. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely ½-½ over 0.5-0.5 for notating draws. No real preference when it comes to scores such as 8½ or 8.5. Perhaps the fraction notation is a trifle clearer, but I see decimals used e.g. on results tables, including the MSA area of the USCF website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably easier for them not to have to use special symbols when inputting large amounts of data, but Wikipedia doesn't appear to have this problem. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought that it's sometimes easier to get the numbers to align in a pleasing column in a crosstable if decimals are used, although that generally requires using .0 on some of the results. There is some ugliness in that as well, so probably it isn't a big concern and using the fractional notation would be as good or better. But I agree that 8.5 is never good in running text (it falsely suggests that 8.6 is a possible score), and 0.5−0.5 is an abomination. Quale (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Versus v. vs v vs.

Per MOS:ABBR, the only correct abbreviation of versus is vs., except in legal contexts, where v. is used. But in game scores I strongly prefer using an en dash with no spaces rather than "vs." or a hyphen, per WP:NDASH: G. Kasparov–A. Karpov. Guretzky-Cornitz is fairly easy to distinguish from Guretzky–Cornitz, at least to my eyes. Virtually all print sources use either a hyphen or a dash, although the spacing differs from publisher to publisher. The reader who doesn't understand that a dash represents a game between two people is not likely to understand algebraic notation in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always found talking in general about conventions such as these unhelpful and misleading, since the devil is always in the details. For e.g., if you prefer endash on game scores, does that extend to section titles and article names? (Should Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 be instead Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1? Or Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, 1996, Game 1?) For me as already mentioned, I think "versus" in TOCs and article names is less good than "vs." or "–", since "versus" works best when reading for meaning whereas "vs." or "–" serve simply to identify a game. (So for e.g. the nine games identified in the TOC [i.e. section names] in article Draw by agreement are better off IMO as "vs." or "–" for easier visual access to that TOC info.) An article name like Queen and pawn versus queen endgame isn't identifying a game, but still might benefit from "vs." instead of "versus" to make the title less "narrative" and more normal recognition by players: Queen and pawn vs. queen endgame. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What are conventions if they are not general? You can rest assured that I always try to say exactly what I mean, and if I don't say something, it's usually because I don't mean to say it. The only case where I support going against the convention I proposed (and this applies to everything I say) is when common parlance overwhelmingly favours the alternative, such as in Kasparov versus the World, which was promoted by MSN and the media as such. So yes, I prefer Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1, unless popular usage for Game 1 itself (I agree that Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov is what the match is usually called) dictates otherwise. There are cases in other fields where the en dash is used in titles: Lincoln–Douglas debates and Roman–Syrian War are two examples I got from the MoS. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What are conventions if they are not general? You misunderstand me. (Yes, the end result of an editing convention development discussion is or s/b a generally stated principle/rule/instruction, but that is the product of said discussion [its output] and I've seldom seen it helpful starting development discussions by immediately jumping to proposed solutions. Just because we say "hey, we are lacking an editing convention for xx" doesn't itself enumerate all the problems or examples we'd want a good convention to address. So jumping ahead of that to a "solution" can just cause a backwards-moving discussion if/when an inherent weakness is found in the proposed solution in the form of inherent exceptions it didn't take into account. [And the result then is a likely break-down of the discussion and nothing gets accomplished. [It's more fun and instantly gratifying to be the "hero" who instantly solves a problem. But when the solution faulters or has cracks, there's immediate loss of interest, the discussion stops, nothing gets done, and months later the whole scario just repeats with the same non-result. [For an example close to home, look at your fast proposal re algebriac notation box and what happened to it. When queried how you'd implement it, you then saw a reason to keep the current box in some applications. That was an example of an instant solution ending up causing backward-direction discussion. Then we saw the proposal fizzle and the discussion lose interest.] If you want to see another vivid illustration of what I mean, go see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Use of gender-neutral terms. (Some editors were all satisfied with generalities, "Hey, what's the problem? Just make it gener-neutral like the Mos says. Easy as pie." Well, ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am being sincere when I say that these are my own opinions, and I am prepared to discuss and welcome discussion on anything I've said. I apologize that the issue with the algebraic notation box has stalled because I haven't bothered asking at the village pump yet. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether "versus" should be abbreviated to "vs." in article titles, but I support having a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles. Incidentally, my suggestion of having en dashes denote individual games provides a neat way of disambiguating between matches and games involving the same players. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There already is "a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles", and it's the same one MOS applies to all other (non-legal) article titles, "X vs. Y". (WP:AT derives its style advice from MOS.) WP:Nobody cares, Cobblet, what personal-quirk way you "prefer" to abbreviate versus. Wikipedia isn't about you and how you want to do things to make chess seem special and different, or so you don't have to adapt your writing to Wikipedia a little since it's a completely different environment than a chess webboard. Nobody cares that your eyes and your fonts on your monitor using your browser (in this week's version) make "Guretzky-Cornitz" and "Guretzky–Cornitz" distinguishable; this is not true of everyone, and for people with vision issues your "fairly easy" is likely not good enough (note also, and this is crucial, that most screen readers for the blind do not distinguish these characters. If you don't like Wikipedia's way of doing "versus" situations in titles, then take that up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The legal field got a variance from "vs.", maybe you'll convince the community that one is needed here, too. (Good luck; I was a regular sports writer here, and I can tell you flat out that virtually no one is going to recognize "X–Y" as synonymous with "X vs. Y"; it must be a chess publication thing, which brings us to nobody cares that chess publications do a few things stylistically different; that's irrelevant here, because this is the world's most general-purpose encyclopedia for the largest conceivable audience). The last thing this notoriously standoffish and WP:OWNish project needs is another point on which it will be broadly seen as pushing an anti-MOS "rebellion" that violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK for harshing on you, but I'm on my way back out to re-re-edit this for a sweeter tone, I think you really know better than what you're proposing, and I have already spent too much time trying to slap some sense into an entire project overrun with tendentious, battlegrounding, hostile WP:SOAPBOXers and WP:ADVOCACY-pushers who have no regard for anything but their own precious interests, for me to care any more. I am intentionally being a bit of a rude ass on this because some of you people just are not getting it, not matter how many times the rest of the community tells you are doing Wikipedia wrong, and I'm at a loss for how to get the message across other than yelling it in your faces. Bye. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we need a WP:OCD and WP:PATRONIZE if they don't exist already. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've witnessed several of his "contributions" to similar discussions at WT:MOS, and you probably won't be surprised to hear me say that his participation always lowered the level of debate and made consensus harder to reach. Fortunately I don't think that will be an issue here. His recent dyspeptic (and I must say very impressive) rants aside, I don't think he's likely to lay siege to this page and attempt to drown out all opposing viewpoints with his shouting the way he often has in the past. Quale (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility to the average reader does matter to me. No doubt that using "vs." instead of a dash would be clearer for them. Am I correct in characterizing User:Bubba73's preference as "versus" in the body of an article, and "vs." in all other situations: titles, headings, captions, perhaps even notes? And does anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like Kramer–Kramer and have used it in several chess articles, but this and previous discussions on this point has convinced me that we shouldn't use the dash this way except perhaps under specific circumstances in tables. "Versus" is too profligate for captions and possibly the the other uses you mention, which leaves us with "vs." I think it might be OK to standardize on vs. in nearly all contexts, using versus in running text. It should be OK to use vs. in running text as well, but it looks too much like the end of a sentence to me. Quale (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Quale, but what about article titles that identify games?

@Cobblet, I think you've mis-summarized Bubba's preferences. (I think he likes "versus" in both article titles, and section names that identify games.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did. I'll let him clarify. Cobblet (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My preference is "versus" in the text and "vs." in diagram captions. I don't have much of an option in section titles (or article titles) - I think I've used both. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this says that "vs." is OK, depending on the context. It also says that the abbreviation is more casual, and if you are unsure - write it out. To me, an encyclopedia tends to be formal. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And it says that "v." or "v" should only be used in legal context. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And "Laws of chess" doesn't count as legal? Well, OK. </joke>. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

0-0-0 vs. O-O-O

We s/ really get resolution on this. The view "it's not important" is fundamentally correct, but ignores the fact there is also irrational intense passion behind the issue. The view "just so consistent within an article" ignores the fact there occurs thereby unending edit reversions (warring) based on personal taste. If I'm not mistaken most articles are 0-0-0 already, and the related documenation explaining FIDE vs. PGN is also in place. Personally I think O-O-O looks old-fashioned and s/b reserved for games 1899 and before for "antique-look" and as convenient tip-off the game is a couple centuries old, and O-O-O takes up an inordinate amount of horizontal space, but that is my own irrelevant personal preference. Cobblet feels Oh, that should obviously be 0-0-0. So I'm suggesting we do this and add it to the limited other WT:CHESS conventions to get it over with and end the otherwise endless source of friction (and inconsistency). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. The decision isn't "forever" obviously. (If the desire is to reverse at some point, how difficult is a mass change e.g., all "0-0-0"s → "O-O-O"s?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see little reason to deviate from what is the official albebraic notation described in the FIDE rules. Article C.13 clearly lists 0-0 over O-O. The chess books that I have, and that includes books from Gambit, Everyman, Mongoose, Random House, and Batsford, all use 0-0 over O-O. The O-O notation is mainly used in pgn files, but these are not truly algebraic notation despite the obvious and almost complete overlap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things are clear: 1) You haven't read the FIDE rules. 2) You didn't read my original post where I pointed out the flaws in the FIDE rules. No point in discussing the issue until those two things change. DrZukhar (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. Why not apologise for labelling Ihardlythinkso's edit vandalism? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DrZukhar, your argument The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. was deficient in that that edition of that book employs English Descriptive Notation (an old-style notation and a good application for "O", IMO), but the modern algebraic reprint uses "0". If a project consensus is drawn re "O" vs. "0", your preference doesn't "win". (Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Re DrZukhar). I am an active arbiter of chess tournaments, so of course I have read the FIDE rules (this is required reading). Secondly, I read your original post as well and "flaws in the FIDE rules" makes no sense. The FIDE rules are the rules, and those are the ones that we follow regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DrZukhar wrote above: The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. That's true for my 1969 Simon & Schuster (original) edition, but that edition also uses the old-fashioned descriptive (e.g. 1.P-K4) notation. (Which is a good choice. So both old-fashioned typographies are together. Did DrZukhar fail to mention that for some reason!? I do not know what decent [non-bastardized] reprinted editions use, does anyone have one and can tell?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The new official edition uses "0". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. (I couldn't view any pages on Amazon.com.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

exd5 vs. e×d5

Oh. Could we also make this official!? (Why? Because Tony1 made a total nuisance of himself at Talk:Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard#Notation convention w/ his incessant baiting "But what about the sources?" mantra based on his tiny booklist and MOS obsession and admittedly not being a player, hello. [And thanks again to Double sharp for reverting the SOB after Tony & Guy Macon were harassing me for a potential block. This shit shows just how nasty the Pedia can be; oh sorry, am I not AGF'ing?! If anyone challenges what I say I can fucking make a convincing case of it, OK?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Again, little reason to deviate from FIDE's document on the laws of chess. In the appendix article C.9 states: "When a piece makes a capture, an x is inserted between...", so it is an "x" and not a cross/multiplication sign that is the standard algebraic notation. This is also the convention used in almost all chess literature. Some older literature, in particular German books, used the ":" notation (1.e4 d5 2.ed5: Qd5:), but it appears to be obsolete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank u. (I actually found "×" in several books in my library like Tony found, and it's pretty classy in those old books I must admit [fine-lined, delicate], but isn't standard by any means & didn't warrant a "fight".) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Be very careful or you will be blocked. Tony (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that all you have to contribute, Tony? Here's what you wrote at the Morphy versus the Duke:

I suspect that chess notation has never undergone scrutiny with respect to the sources. We should be pleased to debate this thoroughly. It's at MoS central talk page. Tony (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet, short of re-posting your mini book list, you didn't participate in the discussion at MoS, however you did repeat to my attention several times including after said discussion had ended the following question, where you apparently didn't feel one question mark was enough and made them triplicate:

Hardly, what about the sources??? Tony (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here again is a chance for you to contribute something meaningful to a discussion of the topic. Perhaps Guy Macon can come in here to help you out by referring to me again as a "mole" that needs "whacking", as he did on your User talk!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The colon is not quite dead yet, just on its way out, I think. Nowadays I think you will more frequently see it used just like "x", so. 1.e4 d5 2.e:d5 Q:d5; I typically use this outside Wikipedia. But x is assuredly the standard. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is "x" used by most specialist publications, it is also the character used by mainstream sources such as newspaper columns—I've been making a list of them over at User:Cobblet/Chess publications. Cobblet (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation symbols (+−, ±, ∞, etc.)

Thanks to everyone who's been participating in the discussion so far. We've talked about the best way of formatting Informant-style evaluation symbols before, but I don't know if we've ever discussed the issue of whether to use them in the first place. I for one feel we shouldn't, because it's safe to say that no reader who isn't familiar with chess literature will have any idea what they mean, and because I don't see any advantage in using them. We're not bound by space constraints, and there's at least one publisher (Everyman Chess) that also scrupulously avoids using these symbols in its books. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous notation issues

There are also a number of fairly trivial issues that were originally brought up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation but did not generate much controversy. I don't expect that to change, but for the sake of completeness, I'll mention them here:

1. For pawn promotion, the common notation d8=Q is recommended as being more intuitive to the non-specialist reader than the alternatives d8Q, d8(Q) and d8/Q (the first is FIDE's recommendation, the other two are rarer).
2. For en passant captures, the notation gxh6 e.p. (which is also FIDE's recommendation) is recommended.
3. The symbol "++" for double checks is discouraged as being unnecessary, and also because FIDE regards it as a valid alternative to # for checkmate.
4. Even if a game ends in checkmate, a result (1–0 or 0–1) should be given at the end of the game score.
5. Expressions such as "g-file", "f5-square" or "e-pawn" should always be hyphenated.

Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles on chess titles - merge?

I propose that the articles National Master and Chess master be merged into Chess title. They deal with essentially the same subject matter. In addition, the article needs to be "globalized". For example, the title "Expert" to refer to a player slightly below master strength is purely a USCF thing. The term "Expert" is not really used in this sense outside of the US. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the whole series of title articles needs to be looked at, including possible merges, and also in relation to the points that I flagged up on the Wikichess Project Page, which I will repeat here for convenience;

Chess title and FIDE title link back to each other and appear to contain some crossover/duplication. Would these be better combined into one article? Also, both articles focus on performance based titles while 'International Arbiter' and 'International Organizer' titles appear to have been ignored, even though they are both Chess and FIDE titles.

A few strands to consider, so no small task. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with merging National Master and Chess master into Chess title, and believe that the latter should also contain a summary-style section on FIDE titles. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK as per WP:BOLD I'm going to transfer the material from National Master to Chess title and set up a redirect. Might take a few edits on Chess title to make it flow coherently.MaxBrowne (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Lilov

His name is Valeri, not Tiger. But I cannot move the page because the title Valeri Lilov has been protected from creation. What to do? MrsHudson (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An administrator should be able to help. But an article about this person was deleted before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), so I don't know if there is justification for bringing it back. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

IM's usually get a short article, but we do have to be careful about our sources, and stick to neutral language and verifiable facts. Clearly he is a self-publicist. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No reason, I AFD'ed the article. Good call, B73. This kid just wants a Wikipedia page and the other 2 AFD's and "salted" re-creation aren't stopping him. Speiss67 (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Pawn structure definitions are incomplete

Seems that there is progress being made! Thank you. Please see Talk:Backward_pawn Rook2pawn (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Heads up (2)

One things: New article, found some mainstream relliable mediar source: Chess_on_Yahoo!_Games. Two things: Lets get some eyes and ears on the Tiger Lilov A.F.D., there is a mass sockpuppet attack going on from Lilov's supporters. Fishface gurl (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That newspaper article is not a reliable source! None of the "facts" in the Wikipedia article are corroborated by it. If better sources aren't found the article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a work in progress. No need to shout. I found some other sources. Please try to be more helpful and help construct, much love. Fishface gurl (talk) 23:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dare I ask why chess.com doesn't have an article, just a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it?

For some reason chess.com and wikipedia don't seem to get along, but it's an undeniable fact that chess.com is a hugely popular site with several million subscribers, and is one of the top 2000 sites on the whole internet in the Alexa rankings. That in itself surely qualifies it as notable? Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a member of chess.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It used to have one, but I think it was deleted because of a lack of independent sources. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com (AfD discussion). One of the loudest voices in trying to get the page deleted was a longterm abusive sockpuppeteer, but other editors had concerns about the page as well. I think a well-written article with sources independent of the subject could demonstrate notability. Quale (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO Chess.com should not redirect to List of Internet chess servers, that is confusing, and has led to quite a bit of confusion already. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the USCF site can be used as a source? Chess.com has grown considerably these last few years and has recently taken over the respected chessvibes site. (Not all chessvibes fans are happy about this). http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12379/319/ MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources is the reason the site does not have an article here. Second of all, that site's claim to "8 million members" is a total lie and everyone that plays chess online knows it. Another thing is that that site has nothing to set itself apart from any other chess server online. Well, maybe one thing is that the site gets an extraordinary amount of negative reaction, such as this blog: by IM David Pruess. But the main thing is the lack of reliable independent sources. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Another reason that Chess.com gets such negative reaction is that it is so obviously a for-profit website founded and run by people that don't even play chess. The only thing that the chess.com management cares about is how much money they can make. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The founders play at club level... but anyway I don't think this is particularly relevant. Clearly ICC and chessgames.com also have a profit motive, otherwise they wouldn't still exist. Chess.com is in fact the biggest chess site on the internet and it's absurd that it doesn't have a wikipedia page. And I'm not even a subscriber. I've started working on an article on my sandbox, I'll submit it when it's ready. It should go without saying that wiki will have no tolerance for single-purpose accounts bringing their drama from chess.com to chess.com's wiki page. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as you have Reliable third party sources for your article everything should be fine. Would you mind telling us what your sources are so far? Unless you get some reliable sources there will be no Chess.com wiki page. And it would be good if you dropped the pompous attitude. Fishface gurl (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it... and a 10 day old account which has already managed to stir up a lot of drama and been logged twice on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents probably isn't in the best position to decide what should or should not be included in wiki. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not deciding. Reliable sources decide. Do you have any? Fishface gurl (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any non trivial sources. I don't think this site is important but Wikipedia would be a little better if it covered the site. To my understanding chess.com got a lot of casual users from Facebook rather then committed chess players. Chess players tend to use chessclub.com (ICC), chesscube.com, lichess.org, playchess.com, freechess.org among others. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence is gibberish. What are you trying to say? Do you speak English? More importantly why do you think that "Wikipedia would be a little better if it covered the site" when there are no reliable sources that discuss the site? Should we do away with notability requirements now? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And uh, no, mere alleged size does not equal notability, and it is not an "undeniable fact" that chess.com has 8 million subscribers, etc. You'd think if the site was as popular as it claims to be *cough* that it would actually be covered in some reliable sources. The lack of mention in any reliable media speaks volumes as to how non-notable that site is. Another wierd thing is that Max Browne claims that he's never been a member of chess.com, yet he defends the owners there saying they are "club level" players. How would he know of that? Does he know these people personally? If he was not a member or had a personal connection to Chess.com how would he know anything about its owners being club level players? It's certainly not written in any reliable sources. What I am seeing here is that a handful of editors are lobbying that the notability requirements be set aside just so Chess.com can sneak an article into Wikipedia. Why is that? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia be a little better if it covered the site? It's something chess people would have heard of and have an expectation of finding on Wikipedia, few could say the same of Chessence or Julius Brach. I don't see 'editors lobbying' but if they did it here on this talk page, it would be near meaningless anyway. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Chessence and Julius Brach covered in reliable sources? That is why they have articles and "Chess.com" doesn't. It is not what "chess people would have heard of" that decides what is covered her and what is not. The issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS militates against the inclusion of a "Chess.com" article. Policy is policy, irrespective of what one pov-pushing chess geek may argue for here. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Chessence told me it doesn't like being lumped together with Julius Brach. It received nearly twice the number of view hits last month as Brach received: [6] vs. [7]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. In any discussion about recreation and notability, only the opinions of established editors should be taken into account. Far too many new, single purpose accounts and probable sockpuppets here. Edit: Just to make it doubly clear, I will not engage with abusive single-purpose accounts or IP's. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main points you should be considering is that you still haven't responded to any of the questions posed to you in your "quest" to force a chess.com article where it does not belong, and in contravention of all wikipedia policies. You choose to focus on the speaker and not the content. However, this Pompidou does have some important questions. Remember also, be nicer to the newbies. On top of all this, I repeat my first question to you: Do you have any reliable sources for this article? Yes or no. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what matters in any discussion about recreation and notability? Substantial coverage in reliable sources. Where is it? In addition, Max Browne's language saying it is "absurd" that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article, his wild personal attacks and allegations of sockpuppetry, and his willingness to flaunt the general notability guidelines just to get his pet article inserted all show that he is not coming from a Neutral point of view. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fishface, Pompidou is probably not a newbie, more likely yet another User:Wiki brah sock. Quale (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm. If Fishface is a puppet, then it goes with Pompidou. Anyway. The WCF credits chess.com not with 8 million, but with 6 million, members: [8]. --Askedonty (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well. Erratum - in fact the two are two very different WCFs. --Askedonty (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. @MaxBrowne:: while I'm sure that opinion re: "established editors" is based on many experiences with sketchy sockpuppeters, WP:AGF is a pretty crucial rule. Wait until you can suspect an account of sockpuppetry before saying "ignore all newbies".

2. (more on topic): Why is there such hostility on this topic? It's true that you can't go by Chess.com's self-published statistics, and most people are going to base "notability" on what they themselves use or have heard of, but I'd encourage any of you beating the WP:N drum to visit ALL OF THE OTHER CHESS SERVER WP PAGES.

• ChessCube - 2 refs from ChessCube, its Alexa stats, a bunch of dead links, blurb about the site as a business, and mention on Susan Polgar's blogspot site. These 2 so-so sources will seem like a lot as the list goes on.
• Chess Live - 0 references.
• ChessWorld - 0 references.
• FIDE Online Arena - only ref is FIDE's (so 0)
• Free Internet Chess Server, Internet Chess Club, and World Chess Network are the best sourced (but even they're not stellar, e.g. all of the FICS refs are from freechess.org, ficsgames.org, or a post on one of the admins' personal websites)
• Playchess - 0 references.

So even the flimsy links people have dug up re: chess.com surpass what there is precedent for. It seems that anybody who would AfD Chess.com would be hypocritical not to also nominate at least Chess Live, ChessWorld, FIDE Online Arena, and Playchess. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Other stuff exists - arguably, these should all get deleted too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mammoth book of Chess by Burgess discusses PlayChess, Internet Chess Club, and the ICCF website. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TechCrunch looks like a good source for establishing chess.com's notability and I can probably find more. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you just take the two seconds to search TechCrunch for Chess.com-related news before you posted that? If you did, you would have seen there is nothing substantial about Chess.com on TechCrunch. Furthermore, is TechCrunch even a reliable source in the first place? Max Browne's insistence on creating an article on Chess.com even with no non-trivial sources and in the face of so many people telling him sourcing does not exist smacks of either willful ignorance or a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue.

Also, concerning those other articles on chess sites, it is an invalid "other stuff exists" argument and all you are accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles now.

Speaking of deletion, Max Browne probably should take into consideration that "Chess.com" has been deleted from Wikipedia at least four, maybe five times already. Fishface gurl (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TechCrunch is not a reliable source for at least two reasons: 1. TechCrunch does not have any editorial selectivity. It writes about every new internet startup. Does that make every internet startup notable? No. TechCrunch's "story" on Chess.com from 2007 is little more than a promotional blurb. More importantly, 2. TechCrunch was later involved in a huge editorial scandal which revealed that its "stories" were little more than a blog with severe conflicts of interest as well as no editorial oversight. see this NY Times story. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists != invalid. This is the WikiProject responsible for coming up with inclusion and notability criteria for chess-related articles (within general policy constraints). That means that if the "other stuff" is an entire category of chess articles which have been deemed acceptable, selectively dogmatic enforcement of the rules against one new entrant to that category, ignoring the rest, is concerning and might betray WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If "all I'm accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles," that's ok--not ideal, but at least some standards could be established. ...But to say that chess.com doesn't belong because it doesn't measure up? ...That TechCrunch is not a reliable source? ...That chess.com doesn't belong because it's for-profit? TechCrunch isn't a great objective source, I agree, but it has been established as a reliable source on Wikipedia for general purposes... and the kind of article you're talking about comprises several of the already scant citations on my little list above (in other words, by those standards, even fewer make the cut). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can you say that this group comes up with inclusion and notability criteria? The inclusion and notability criteria is dictated by the entire site. If you find the standards too strict perhaps you can start some sort of wiki of your own. Nobody also said that the sourcing for the articles you pointed out was acceptable. Those articles should be AFD'd according to the sources you found. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an appropriate essay User:Master_Thief_Garrett/Don't_add_sewage_to_the_already_polluted_pond. Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Pompidou Centre: - That does have some applicability. In general I have a problem with its logic being rooted in deletionist/immediatist (I can't believe I'm using those terms) assumptions/values (e.g. the possible connotative shift "if the homeless family already has day-old baked goods, don't give them any more"). But that's more of an aside. Regardless, the time and effort being exerted to prevent this one source of pollution is such that for every gallon of (chemicals?) the Chess.com article would add to the "polluted pond," people could have removed 10 gallons of chemicals already polluting the pond. That's not to say it--or any of them--should or shouldn't exist, but it seems to imply some other, more ideological motivations in play. Or perhaps it's just about making an example? --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fishface gurl: Indeed. What I was referring to, though perhaps I overstated their role, are WP:Advice pages. WikiProjects often have second-order criteria (or "advice") on how to apply site policy to subject-specific articles. In some cases it has been these that led to subject-specific guidelines. Ultimately, however, I'm not arguing for nuanced documentation like "advice on internet chess server notability"; nor am I even saying one way or the other than Chess.com or any of those others should or shouldn't exist. It's just concerning that it seems people are putting up a particularly strong fight against this one site for POV reasons, holding it to strict interpretation of notability while turning a willfully blind eye to its equivalents, none of which would hold up to the same scrutiny. Something tells me if FICS were put up at AfD and I pointed to the standards for sourcing demanded of Chess.com via this and other discussion threads it wouldn't be long before someone directed me again to some essay like "There's other stuff" to dismiss comparison. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I totally get what you are saying. I am sorry if I came off as shrill. If the Chess.com has reliable sources that substantially cover the subject then I don't see why it shouldn't have an article. My concern is that New York Times story on TechCrunch, which casts severe doubts on TechCrunch's objectivity. Did you read it? In my personal opinion, not that it matters overall, I think there are three "notable" chess servers. ICC has been written about since it was the first, FICS has been covered in the press due to a rather nasty split from ICC, and ChessCube has also been covered in the business press since it was unique in having received large amounts of venture capital from traditional venture capital sources; that resulted in some coverage in the traditional business press, I think. I do think it will be only a matter of time before Chess.com gets covered in the mainstream press or the business press, however. Then it certainly will be "notable" hands down. I believe also that coverage or even a mention in a traditional chess encyclopedia such as Hooper & Wilde or Sunnucks can assert notability. Just my thoughts, all the best. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the following SPI. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Fishface gurl (talk · contribs), along with several other accounts, has been indefinitely blocked as a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to lie low for now and let the drama die down, because honestly I don't even like chess.com much (ICC man myself). Anyone who wants to create such an article is welcome to use the material from my sandbox. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pompidou Centre (talk · contribs) is on the list too. The article in your sandbox looks in better shape than it did during the last deletion discussion, if I recall, and at least one of those socks were vocal critics in that discussion. Maybe without them it wouldn't have such a hard time? I'm still ambivalent, but your sandbox version certainly looks passable (withuot having clicked the refs links). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's notable that the main sources regarding this site's non-notability are themselves non-notable, certainly not reliable, and primarily written by Wiki brah. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sicilian Defence, Katalimov Variation

No reliable sources in the article, and no significant coverage in reliable sources that I know of. Other opinions? Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think it really needs its own article, the material can be included in the main Sicilian Defence article. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category question

I've just come across Category:Chess double grandmasters. Am I the only one who finds this category bizarre? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need it. Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

When it was created I suggested that a list would be more appropriate than a category if we feel we really want to record this information at all. Short sections in the lists of correspondence and composition gm's might be warranted since I think there might be mild interest. Quale (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is something that is occasionally mentioned in the chess world and I would say a noteworthy achievement. It may be more of a European, rather than American topic of interest, as we have high profile characters like Nunn and Mestel with double titles here in the UK for example. We must however take some care with our chess title descriptions generally, not just in category introductions, but also in article space. As those who visit chessgames.com may know, there is sometimes reference to the grandmaster title that the Russian Federation awards its own players. This is not a FIDE title, but Natalia Pogonina for one, insists it is more difficult to achieve and therefore can be viewed as more prestigious than the FIDE version. Our title articles are quite poor at present - lots of duplication and even FIDE titles that are missing. I will add a note to the Wikiproject 'things that need ...' item regarding titles, so that Russian Federation titles are considered by anyone who rewrites/revamps the existing range of articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to ascertain who holds any Russian (or Soviet) titles and what they did to get them. Couldn't find them on the russiachess.org website. Here's some interesting stuff from Mark Weeks. Being a blog it's not a reliable source in its own right of course, but he seems to know what he's talking about and can probably help with sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A little more on this; a few weeks ago I copied from the German and Russian wikis to create the page List of Honoured Masters of Sport of the USSR in chess. I found another couple of interesting pages on the Russian wiki giving the history of the Master title as it relates to chess: Мастер спорта СССР по шахматам and Маэстро. For all of these articles the main source given is the 1990 Encylopedic Dictionary of Chess, edited by Anatoly Karpov and published by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a source most of us obviously wouldn't have access to even if we did know Russian; however it appears to be one of the definitive reference works on Soviet chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good addition to the encyclopedia. I've reached out to a chess editor who has excellent knowledge of and sources for Soviet and Russian chess; maybe he will be able to help. For those who are interested, the chess project topped the 4000 article mark last month. I'm not sure precisely which article put us over. Quale (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's depends how we are measuring. A good way to evaluate this is using page_id at CatScan 2.0. By this way, the 4000th article created was Leonid Yurtaev but this list can change if we add/delete an older article. Well, congratulations anyway!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tip. According to the article assessment statistics on WP:CHESS, on 21 July the project had 3975 articles tagged {{WikiProject Chess}}, but Leonid Yurtaev was created in March. I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy, but it isn't hugely important. Quale (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alvaro Dias Huizar

Is Alvaro Dias Huizar, a FIDE master, notable enough for an article? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the article demonstrates wikipedia notability. Venezuelan national rank is 87, and of course Venezuela isn't an international chess powerhouse. Quale (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship frequency

At World Chess Championship there is some back-and-forth editing about whether it is every one year or every two years. It links to this, which says every two years, but is it every one year now? It needs to have the correct current information. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That source is from 2007 and is largely irrelevant now (virtually the entire plan it lays out was eventually changed, e.g. Topalov didn't get to play Anand until 2010). One could infer from the fact the World Cups are held every two years that FIDE wants to hold the WCh every two years. However, everyone also knows that in practice, FIDE's schedule depends on the availability of sponsors rather than any sort of organized planning on its part. Unless a better source (i.e. more recent, and ideally from FIDE) can be found to support either the two-year or one-year frequency (the FIDE calendar doesn't mention any schedule for the WCh after 2014), it's probably better not to say anything at all on the subject. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Quale (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting tool look for other articles in another languages

A long time ago I read here an user that created a list of chess articles that exists in german but not in english in order to create than. Well, now we have this tool that is quite simple and useful to do that. If someone wants some help translating from portuguese, please let me know. Regards! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2013

View hits. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz. Someone wake me up when it's all over. (Maybe we'll have 1 or 2 exciting games. I like Fischer's conditions: first to win 10; draws don't count!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Draws never do "count" in a one on one match. Decisive games are the exception rather than the rule between top grandmasters, and good luck finding a venue and sponsors for an open-ended match with no definite end date. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

They "count" in the sense that, each draw inches closer to the end of the match (so if a player is 1 game ahead, he is apt to seek draws, since draws are in his advantage match-wise; in Fischer's conditions, draws are truely worth nothing - a player has to win x number of games; and perhaps the necessity to play for wins would draw more interest, more ticket-paying spectators, counter-balancing the drawback you named). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If I know my chess history correctly, the "only wins count" format was abandoned due to the World Chess Championship 1984. If you look through the archives of those games you will see plenty of short draws there as well. (Chess Life even had a page covering many of those short draws, unannotated. The page was entitled "Sleeping pills".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. But in that format, players eventually must play for wins to earn x wins. (In the "draws-creep-to-end-of-match" format, after 1 point ahead, there's no compulsion to press for even one more win.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Another voice in support for Fischer's format. I dunno, but the large number of short draws make all the excitement fizzle out at the beginning... Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

An unlimited number of games is not practical. Remember the first Karpov-Kasparov match? They played for 5 months with no decision. There were 40 draws in 48 games - many of them short. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The "first to win x number of games" format also gives a slight advantage to the player who has white first. However, maybe there could be a hybrid format - first one to win x games, with a limit of y games at that time control. If it is tied after y games, then either the champion retains his title or there are rapid tiebreakers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And of course Fischer did not originate that format. It had been used in quite a few world championship matches before. Looking at world championship history, I don't see any evidence at all that first to win 6 or 10 games matches are more exciting than best of n as long as n is not too small. Anyway it was not one of Fischer's better ideas. First to win 6 games is completely impractical in modern chess, and the very first time the format was used in a match with participants of equal strength it was a catastrophe. K vs. K 1984 was not wonderful for spectators or participants. It was bad for chess, and even had the match continued to a conclusion it would not really have been any better. Quale (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Game 3: Exciting game #1! (But whoever loses might end up looking stupid re the a2-pawn. [So I'd like this game to be a draw; because neither player is "stupid"!]) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen after the game 8 draw: "I did not particularly mind the draw as was evident from my play." And: "With the line I chose there was not too much to think about. The moves very much suggest themself. It has been played before. There wasn’t too much to think about. I wasn't in any mood to think either." (I wonder if his approach would have been the same in a 'first to win x games' format. He was White in game 8. The draw obviously puts more pressure on Anand in the current format. But has no advantage in the other format except bypassing a chance as White when one isn't "in any mood to think".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That format is interesting, but has two big problems: first, the player who starts the match with the white pieces gets an unfair advantage (which is why I would favour the "win by +2 idea" [although without privileges for the reigning world champion]), and second, sponsorship for a match of undefined duration would be hard to find even in Russia. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The color issue can mostly be eliminated by going WBBWWBBWW, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See here's what I mean ... from WP commentary on the final game: "Maintaining the tension with 30.Nc3, 30.Ng3, or 30.b4 should have given White a winning game, but Carlsen erred with 30.exd6, releasing the tension and allowing Anand to recoup the pawn soon after." (Does anyone really think Carlsen "erred" in not seeing three other more aggressive move options? The draw secured his championship. Playing for x wins would have spelled a more exciting game continuation at move 30.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he erred at move 30. He could have taken a draw and won the championship. Instead he was playing for a win, even though he didn't need to. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Five moves later all major pieces were off the board. He could have taken a draw - what line do you mean, was there one more drawish? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen could have taken a draw in the last game and won the WC. (My pre-game prediction was a draw in 24 moves.) Instead he played for a win, when he didn't have to. So that kind of disproves the point that people will only play for wins in the "first to win x games" format. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen could have taken a draw - again (I think you missed my Q the first time), what line are you referring to (that Carlsen could have taken for a draw, but didn't)? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any particular line. He could have played for a draw. He didn't - he played for a win, until, as he said, after a time control when the calculations were too complicated. And he said that at the time, he thought that the 30th move he made was winning. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen addresses this in the first or second question in his part of the news conference. He says that he misses something simple. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

From listening to the press conference, Carlsen missed that 30.exd6 wasn't as good as he thought it was. In the video that Bubba73 links to, the relevant part is at 1.19.20. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review

My Venezuelan comrades and I have contested your unwise, unsound, and imperialist deletion of Grand Master Dias Huizar here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_12. You shall not get away with this insult to the Bolivarian spirit! Churrasco Eater (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_12. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is yet another User:Wiki brah sock. My advice is to ignore him, but do as you see fit. Quale (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have activated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra Nicolau

I today created the page for Käty van der Mije-Nicolau as she recently passed away. She is listed as Alexandra Nicolau on this Wikiprojects' articles to create section, so she might be crossed off the list. Unfortunately I don't know much about chess so one of this Wikiprojects members might wish to check the article for accuraccy. Cheers. Crispulop (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I made some small corrections. Käty van der Mije-Nicolau needs to be added to index of chess articles, but I don't know which letter for the last name. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a policy on this somewhere, but I *think* particles in Dutch and German names are usually ignored in alphabetical lists. Our index is generally (van der Wiel, van Wely, van der Sterren, all names with "von") but not entirely consistent in this respect (de Groot, van der Nat and van Kampen). Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done under M. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements to the article. Dutch name directories ignore prefixes such as: van / van der/ de, etc. So she is correctly listed under M.

I furthermore saw that User:Garybekker created a whole list of chess related articles and the most recent ones have not yet been tagged with WikiProject Chess. Those might be interesting for your Wikiproject. Crispulop (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Gary's done some good work writing about Aus and NZ players, but his articles are often challenged on Notability grounds. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Wong & Gordon Crown

I welcome any feedback and improvements on these two articles. I think Crown qualifies for notability because of his strong promise, upset win over Kotov and premature death. I think Wong is notable in the context of Jamaican chess, since it was (ans still is) very rare for Jamaica to produce such a talented player at such a young age. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on writing the Crown article; it has long been needed. I can certainly add at least two more references from books that are authoritative, although I think that the online sources you already have (Chess magazine and Winter) are actually good enough to establish notability. I will either add direct if it seems straightforward, or contact you on your talk page if I am in danger of undoing any of your work. Unfortunately I don't have any detailed knowledge of Sheldon Wong, so will be unable to help you on that one. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For some reason some editors have a problem with my description of "highly promising". I don't think it's hyperbole, or weasel words, or original research; just a paraphrase of the sources I've read. Nor do I see a problem with describing the death of an 18 year old as "premature". MaxBrowne (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then identify it as the opinion of those sources. On Wikipedia, "Nomen Nescio called John Doe a talented pianist" should never become "John Doe was a talented pianist". As for "premature", see WP:WTA. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see "premature" in the "words to avoid" article. Plenty of wiki articles refer to someone dying prematurely... and how is the death of an 18 year old not premature? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. The page has multiple ellipses and repeatedly uses the expression "words such as".
2. See WP:OSE.
3. It's subjective, and you end up in a slippery slope: if 18 is premature, what about 19? What about 20? What about 25? What about 40? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

18 isn't premature?? And the description "promising" is certainly supported by the source I supplied. Wikipedians can be so anal sometimes. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ok I'm kind of irritated about this so I'm just going to restore those "promising" and "premature" descriptions. If you think they somehow violate wikipedia policy please take them to dispute resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

None of what you wrote addressed my rebuttals. You have made no reference to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. "He was talented" is not neutral. "He was widely considered talented" is. Your use of the word "anal" is rude and gratuitous. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add them to index of chess articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well hopefully the line I was (and still am) going to take should attend to those concerns, without losing sight of Crown's potential or early demise. I'll get on with it shortly. Meanwhile, you have reminded me of another long overdue article - Ian Wells (chess player). Wells was another teenager who died prematurely and uncannily, he was also noted for beating Kotov during his short life. If you don't know of him, see Chessgames.com for a brief bio and there is a longer reminiscence by Larry Evans, on something called SunSentinel I think, via Google. He is on my long term 'to do' list, but if anyone wants to pick up the mantle, feel free. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports festivals

Some time ago User:Nickst added categories such as Category:Sports festivals in Norway and Category:Sports festivals in India to various chess articles, including World Chess Championship 2013 and Chess World Cup 2013. The page Sports festival redirects to the article Multi-sport event, which says: "A multi-sport event is an organized sporting event, often held over multiple days, featuring competition in many different sports between organized teams of athletes from (mostly) nation-states." Neither a World Chess Championship or a Chess World Cup consist of "many different sports"; only chess is being played there. Thus, I think these categories should be removed, but I would welcome feedback from others on this matter. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that redirect is wrong. It will be the new article about sports festivals (it is not multi-sport events only). It is a sports events with participating teams/athletes from another countries (not only from host country). If you will see any subcategory from Category:Sports festivals by country, you can see many such items. For example, 2005 World Archery Championships in Category:Sports festivals in Spain, 2013 World Women's Handball Championship in Category:Sports festivals in Serbia and so on. All international sports events are included in Category:Sports festivals by country cattree. That's why Chess World Cup 2013 was included in Category:Sports festivals in Norway and World Chess Championship 2013 must be in Category:Sports festivals in India. If you want to change current practice, you must start discussion in WP:Cfd or WT:CATP, not only in chess project. NickSt (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I think your definition of "sports festival" is wrong. Just because someone else doesn't know what a sports festival is and has categorized other articles incorrectly doesn't mean the same should be done here. "Sports festival" and "multi-sport event" are essentially synonymous, but there are mistakes in the multi-sport event article also. It claims that a multi-sport event features competition between international teams. In fact many sports festivals include individual competitions and are local rather than international, and I suspect that this is far more common than the international team examples. There are hundreds of sports festivals every year in the US organized at the state and local level, and I'm sure this is true in other parts of the world as well. I challenge you to find a single WP:RS that calls the World Chess Championship a sports festival. I'm quite serious about the demand for a citation. Without a source your categorization is WP:OR and must be removed. Quale (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Now the content of the category tree Category:Sports festivals by country is equal "International sports competitions hosted by X". That's why I have proposed to rename Category:Sports festivals by country to Category:International sports competitions by country. Your opinion is welcomed. NickSt (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

European Chess Champions

Recently I discovered Category:European Chess Champions. For some reason it does not distinguish between undisputed and women's titleholders, like the categories Category:World chess champions and Category:Women's World Chess Champions do. (Incidentally, why do they have contradictory use of capital letters?) I think Category:Women's European Chess Champions (or perhaps Category:European Women's Chess Champions) should be created. Comments? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the category should be removed instead. This is a category that should be a list, and in fact we already have it as all the champions can be found in one place at European Individual Chess Championship. I do not consider this category to be a defining characteristic in the way that the world championships are. Also I agree that the capitalization of the world championship categories should be straightened out, but I'm not sure which is the best way. I think I would agree to whatever Cobblet recommends, as he has given very good explanations of similar issues such as White vs. white. Quale (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needing cleanup

Before the match between Carlsen and Anand began, on 8 November 2013, a new World champion emerged: Vishal Sareen! ;-) The article needs substantial cleanup. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User behaviour

(Personal attack removed) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep this page a place to discuss chess-related content on Wikipedia? Remarks addressed only to one person should be made on that person's talk page: the rest of us are not interested. Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't "speak for" me, Cobblet. I'm interested. That said, you're right, the issue belonged on User Talk. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, it's quite impressive that a comment that was not a violation of WP:CIV has been deleted as a "personal attack", and nobody appears to object to that. For some reason, the post with the word "anal" still remains here. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think that this is very helpful either "flush". Talkingfacts2 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Talkingfacts2 (talk · contribs) is a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. It seems he doesn't even try to hide it. I suppose he must have some other socks that aren't so blatantly obvious. Quale (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkingfacts2 is blocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Different fraction

What do you think of this edit? I've never seen fractions displayed like that in chess literature, but maybe it has been used by some writers. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edit. Fractions aren't used that way. The score was seven points out of nine, not seven ninths. Quale (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. (Confusing, and technically incorrect.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It really stands for "7 out of 9", not "seven ninths". What if he scored 7-1/2 out of 9?? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's simple arithmetic: obviously 71⁄2/9 = 15⁄18, even though only 9 rounds were played. A score of 6/9 would be reported as 2⁄3, and logic requires that we report a 9/9 score as 1. Quale (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are joking. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Obviously 71⁄2/9 = 5⁄6 MaxBrowne (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I was carless—Max is right. A few weeks ago someone changed ½–½ to 1⁄2–1⁄2 on a few chess pages. I reverted those too. It's partly a cosmetic issue since the fraction spoils the line spacing, but I also changed them back because I view ½ in a game score to be an atomic symbol that is understood and digested in one piece, not divisible into parts. Quale (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is where I show complete ignorance of editing basics. Last time I looked, the ½ symbol seemed to have been erased from the character subsets ( - the one I just used was copy-pasted!). So where do we now get it from? Obviously, I'm missing a trick here. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a cry'in shame. (It s/b in Help:Wiki markup and WP:MOSNUM. MOS:FRAC seemingly talks against it, but I discussed this w/ Bubba at Talk:Boris Spassky.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I was also disappointed that the fractions disappeared from the editing toolbar. You can use the ½ HTML entity, optionally followed by previewing and pasting the result back into the page if you would like the page source to use the Unicode character rather than the entity. This is a little easier than finding the Unicode symbol to copy from a different chess page or by googling. The MOS has long discouraged use of Unicode fractions. Although I agree that Unicode fractions are poor choices in many contexts, I think they are better for chess scores than the alternatives. Quale (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I had hoped it was just my stupidity, but sadly not. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com-related edit warring (again)

See List of Internet chess servers. Is there something that can be done to put an end to this "redlink-pushing"? I'm not even going to take it to WP:RPP, because protection would be dismissed due to "insufficient disruptive editing". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm in agreement. There's no requirement that every entry in a list article have a wikipedia page, nor does every entry have to meet notability requirements. This is exactly analogous to the treatment of individual sentences in a non-list article. See my edit, and I also wrote a bit about my opinion of the matter some months ago on the talk page. The biggest agitator to keep chess.com off that list (and in fact erase any mention of chess.com anywhere on wikipedia) was Wiki brah. Quale (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we bite the bullet, create the article and be prepared for an onslaught of sockpuppets then? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This is what we are up against: [9] &[10]. Yep, some people have a lot of time on their hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. That the primary detractors were now banned and/or socks is a pretty good reason for recreation. PS: This is likely the reason you linked to those two pages above, but to state the obvious so people don't have to dig: they're primarily authored by wiki brah. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The detractors can detract all they want, but if the article was well sourced, it would have been kept. I'm all for re-creation; I would just make sure you have something solid before pulling the trigger.

Regarding whether an item without an article should be on List of Internet chess servers, I'm not aware of a policy on this. I think it would depend on the nature of the list. But in this case, I think you absolutely DO want that restriction. Otherwise, you're asking for the list to be overrun with non-notable COI additions. --SubSeven (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If that were to happen, action could be taken. Looking at the history of the page, I see no evidence that this has been an issue so far. Quale (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. (The corresponding chess principle is: "Only respond to real threats, not imagined ones.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FIDE Federations Rankings

• Please, pay your attention, a very outdated article: FIDE Federations Rankings (ratings as of December 2010). Need to update or send to WP:AFD. NickSt (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I share Quale's opinion (expressed on the talk page) that this article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2013≤ (UTC)

Might be ok if we had people willing to go through the laborious process of keeping the article up to date... but people can just go to the FIDE site for that info so why bother? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship game 9

General discussion, do you think that Anand simply picked up the wrong piece in game 9 on his 28th move? Right after he did it his hand jerked, as if perhaps he picked up the wrong piece. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging by what he said at the press conference after the game, it doesn't seem to have been the case. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. (Anand: "[...] as soon as I put the knight down, I finally saw what I had done.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC).

Resolved

In the video, it looked like his hand jerked right afterward. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced article

I have severe concerns about the quality of the article List of chess games. Please see my comments at Talk:List of chess games#Inclusion. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of world chess champions

Comments are welcome at Talk:World Chess Championship 2013#"20th world champion" and Talk:World Chess Championship#Numbering in Reigns of the champions. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Igor-Alexandre Nataf

See what you think. Please don't violate WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! in critiquing it. :) WikiVampires and Wikilawyers bring me down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I would recommend that you supplement those team and world championship results with some regular international tournament results. Mostly, I use the Polish wiki for this purpose as User:Pjahr over there (and here!) has a very good grasp of tournament results. I'd probably refrain from adding too many, as it may unbalance a short article, but Nataf has been particularly active in Reykjavik, Stockholm and Montreal, so I would probably just focus on them - also, his European Youth Ch. success in Rimavská Sobota - I'd probably add/reference that one per Pjahr initially and then switch to an English source later, if one can be found. If you are agreeable, I am happy to add these results myself, as I have some time available. The article should be added to Index of chess articles if you haven't done so already. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice start. There's a very short blurb on Nataf in the intro to Nunn-Nataf in The World's Greatest Chess Games that might possibly be useful, at least as a source to cite for the game. Also Nunn's Understanding Chess Move By Move (p. 70) says it was issue 75 rather than 76 of Informator that awarded the prize. Cobblet (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an articles for deletion discussion on Nataf going on right now. The problem is, that there to be no "reliable" real sources in the article at all. Look at the sources listed. I myself voted to delete it. If Tiger Lilov is unwelcome here even with many reliable sources why should this gentleman be on here? Tiger Lilov is a famous commentator and video producer and star in his native Bulgaria and tout le Monde where people play chess. Valeri Lilov (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess annotation symbols

A fairly important question (though related specifically to this revert): are unsourced chess annotation symbols contrary to WP:NPV (as well as WP:OR)? The edit summary "actually 14...Nxf2 rather than 17... Rxf2 looks like the outstanding move of the game, at least to this amateur" ([11]) is not in line with "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (taken from the NPV page). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• In general, I agree we should not be in the business of adding these annotation symbols on our own accord. In the specific case that you mention, the article says that the game was annotated in Chess Informant 76. If that source (or some other source) uses the "!!", I am OK with including it in the Wikipedia article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've never seen evaluative annotation symbols in a chess WP article without either a source specified or implied. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. A trickier and perhaps related issue is picking a diagram position when putting up a game (assuming a diagram is helpful or appropriate and improves the article in question). (On the one hand a diagram position sort of contains the implied message that the position chosen is critical, important, or interesting, and deserves the reader's attention .... which is sort of evaluative. [So would such a choice require a source, i.e. a source which also chose that specific position to diagram?] On the other hand a diagram can be helpful to corroborate/confirm that someone playing over the moves has done so correctly to that point, and if the diag caption contains nothing emphasizing that the diag'd position is somehow a critical or important position, then I really can't see a harm or counter-WP policy for an editor to simply pick the position him/herself. [But maybe one shouldn't be selected by the editor if there is a diagram choice available that is sourceable, even if the source chose that position without any particular comment indicating the position is critical/important!?]) Just some thoughts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Diagram placement is not original research because it has not introduced any new information that is not apparent from the game score. The fact that it emphasises a certain point is true of just about everything we put in when we write articles. In almost all cases the aggregate information contained in the sources far exceeds the information that will make its way into the article, and the decision of what to include, what to focus on in particular detail, and what to leave out altogether, is an editorial decision based largely on common sense, not a decision that can be "looked up" in the sources. The articles we publish on Wikipedia should not contain original research, but they should be original (i.e. not plagiarism) and they should be the result of research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that explain, Sjakkalle. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

notability of grand masters

Is there a guideline for chess player notability? Must we rely solely on WP:GNG? Dlohcierekim 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the latest article on that French Grand Master fails as such. I think we need more relaxed standards for notability a departure from standard general laws of Wikipedia for chess articles. Many important chess articles have been forced to be deleted recently because of this. Such as Tiger Lilov who is a very well liked chess instructor, actor, and media personality in Bulgaria, Russia, and Greece and many parts of the world. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarify, as the topic title implies the content is about Grandmaster(GM). Tiger Lilov is NOT a GM; while Igor Nataf is a GM. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Two most recent related Project threads/discussions are Notability problems preventing player coverage, and Chess notability, FYI. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on the second of the two discussions, "Chess notability," it seems as if there is not a consensus as to whether all Grandmasters are notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Comments like "there are too many Grandmasters not all of them can be notable" and such. I do not think this French GM has any coverage in the media. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd welcome a discussion on a policy for chess players on WP:ATHLETE. I believe the position that all grandmasters are notable is reasonable. In this particular case, I'll note that Nataf is known to be Radjabov's second - see this interview for example. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good paragraphs from "Athelete": A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse.Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage.

Being Radjabov's second is more of a trivial fact, how does that make anyone suddenly so important that they can get an article? Also, Tiger Lilov is a famous television, film, and internet persona in the same areas where Radjabov practices but he is more likely be known by millions of people tout le Monde where chess is known. Especially in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, the Balkans, Romania, Serbia. Basic rules like multiple non trival sources are still the basic rule. Valeri Lilov (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nataf is a GM, has represented France in international competition, competed in world championships, played one of the most famous games in the 1990's, and is a second for a world championship candidate. All of these facts can be cited to reliable sources. Your statement that Lilov is "famous" cannot. If you're going to troll, at least try a little harder. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify one point WP:GNG is primarily an inclusionary guide, not so much an exclusionary guide. If one meets GNG, one is notable. However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG. The problem here is not the notability of the subject but the lack of an appropriate guideline. I just can see putting under athlete. Dlohcierekim 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we create a guide line and put it on the main page project page? Here's my first stab at it:

"Chess players are generally considered notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria. However please note that this is only a guideline, not a set of rules to be followed rigidly.

• Grandmasters
• Players who have qualified for an Interzonal, candidates tournament or world championship tournament
• Finalists in the national championship of a major chess playing country
• National champions of International Master strength or better
• Players who have represented a major chess playing country at an Olympiad or other national team event
• Players who have at some point in their career been rated among the world's top 100 players
• Prominent chess authors, chess magazine editors and chess columnists
• Prominent chess trainers
• Prominent chess problem and endgame composers
• Players who have received significant coverage in the mainstream news for chess-related activity"

MaxBrowne (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also correspondence players, arbiters, and maybe organizers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought that project-specific notability guidelines are usually a mistake, and that WP:GNG should be sufficient in nearly all cases. I think my view is in the minority here, as many people have suggested over several years that a chess guideline is needed. I still think that our experience with WP:AFD is that very few notable chess biographies are deleted (I can only think of one off hand, and that was an article on a chess journalist that wasn't very well sourced) and few non-notable chess biographies are kept. Lilov and Wiki brah would still be annoyances even if we had chess-specific guideline, but if other chess editors want to develop such a guideline I won't stand in the way. Quale (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the project must be very careful if it develops such a guideline. Any guideline will be used to argue for article deletion as well as retention, so make very sure that the guideline doesn't exclude any biographies that you think should be kept. Quale (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think such a notability guideline could be used to argue for deletion of an otherwise notable topic—WP:ATHLETE is very clear that "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline." In my mind, the main purpose of such a guideline is to allow us to SNOW close AfDs where a clear consensus to keep has already been established (e.g. all FIDE grandmasters). WP:ATHLETE suggests that in developing a new guideline, we should "consider what criteria that, if met, nearly 100% guarantees the sports figure will have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources." In the spirit of that, I'd suggest a shorter list of criteria than MaxBrowne's (in particular, a "prominent" person is essentially tantamount to "a person who satisfies WP:GNG", so it isn't necessary to say that again), so I'd propose something more like this:

• Holders of the FIDE or ICCF GM titles
• Players who have qualified for a FIDE Interzonal, World Cup, Grand Prix, Candidates tournament or world championship tournament, or the analogous events for the FIDE Women's World Championship cycle
• Players who have won the unsegregated (neither by age nor by sex), over-the-board championship of any national federation with at least 10 FIDE grandmasters in its history according to the count provided by FIDE's website, or players who have represented such a federation at the FIDE Olympiad
• Players who hold the FIDE IM title and have won the unsegregated, over-the-board championship of any national federation

The "10 FIDE grandmasters" is my attempt to define a "major chess playing country." (Alternative definitions, e.g. one based on the total number of titled players, are equally possible.) And I prefer criteria based on titles and tournament results rather than ratings since ratings haven't been around as long. (For players who predate FIDE we'd have to fall back on WP:GNG anyway.) Regarding Bubba's suggestion, while I think any correspondence GM would be notable, I'm not convinced that all FIDE IAs, IOs, or ICCF IAs are also notable, so I'd prefer deferring to WP:GNG for arbiters/organizers in general. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

An arbiter for a world championship or other top level event would probably qualify as notable, not so sure about an arbiter for an ordinary GM tournament. Arbiters for top level events are often strong players in their own right anyway (e.g. Lothar Schmid) and would qualify as notable on that basis.
Your criteria involving FIDE titles won't work so well for historical chess figures. Besides the players who died before 1950, there were a number of players, particularly in the Soviet Union, who were clearly of IM, perhaps GM strength but never received a FIDE title (e.g. Alexander Koblencs, Igor Platonov). Chessmetrics is a decent source for pre-FIDE ratings, some argue that the chessmetrics ratings are more accurate.
As far as potential for abuse goes, we could state explicitly that this is a guide as to what should be included rather than what should be deleted. Then next time a new user shows up and nominates an article about a GM for deletion we can just point to the guideline and move on. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your first point was precisely what I was trying to say: just because a person does not satisfy the criteria we've listed does not mean they don't satisfy WP:GNG—the people you mention clearly do. There's no universally accepted way to determine who was of "GM strength" and who was not, so I don't think that sort of wording should appear in the guideline. Your second point is exactly how WP:ATHLETE is intended to be used, if I'm reading the guideline correctly. Again, the guideline isn't meant to replace WP:GNG for games/sports-related biographies; its purpose is only to establish that "if the article does meet the criteria set forth... then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your lists of guidelines are way too loose. The guidelines are supposed to be a sport-specific guide to which types of articles meet GNG and which don't. I would say that none of the categories listed would meet GNG except maybe Grandmasters, and even then not too often. You also do realise that AFD gets participation from the entire internet right? People outside of the "Wiki Chess" or whatever get to weigh in, so if you propound these guidelines that don't meet GNG you're just gonna be in for a rude awakening. Just for the record, the above statment of "However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG." is completely wrong. You can't subvert GNG with a genre-specific guideline. Gameof ThronesGuy (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but why would a new account want to get involved in this discussion? Just wondering. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history, redux

While we're talking about WP:NPOV/WP:OR, what about this article? I'm of the opinion that the first table, which for some reason lists peak FIDE rating for precisely 21 players, is at the very least too long. I believe the only rating peaks that have received significant coverage in reliable sources are historical all-time highs like Fischer's 2785 rating (I'm sure I could find a number of sources that talk about how long that record stood for and how it was eventually broken by Kasparov) and ratings over 2800 (one can Google "Topalov 2800" or "Kramnik 2800" to see examples of news coverage). Also, I believe the last table, which counts the number of times a player defended a world championship title and the number of years they reigned, because these are allegedly "considered by some as a measure of chess greatness", is an original synthesis of information and should be removed. What do you guys think? Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Five years ago I argued on the article talk page that the highest ratings list shouldn't be trimmed very much, but I have been wavering on that point for a while now. I'm not sure what to do with it. Eventually Fischer won't even be in the top 20, so some change will be needed.

On your second point I agree the world champions table is a problem. There is some discussion of this on the article talk page although no consensus was reached. Although it's likely that it is true the number of titles and length of reign is "considered by some to be a measure of greatness", it isn't cited. The table is very hard for someone to understand if they aren't familiar with the ugly split in the title (Undisputed, FIDE, and Classical columns). Maybe instead of a table, a few (say three to five) of the world champions with the longest reigns could be discussed in a paragraph or two in the text. Quale (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my views on the first table: I suppose it's meant to illustrate the point that "one way to compare players of different eras is to compare their Elo ratings". But the subsequent discussion basically contradicts this idea, e.g. "Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras." In light of that, I don't think such a lengthy table squares with NPOV. I agree with your points on the last table—I might take a stab at fixing that at some point. Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I think the following Rfc is relevant to this project. Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels#Request_for_comment_-_autoconfirmed_status_to_nominate_an_article_for_deletion

My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to try to not let sockpuppet vandals get you down. They are annoying, but eventually they get bored and go away. Even this extremely persistent gnat can't cause any permanent damage unless he aggravates you enough to stop contributing, so I hope you don't let that happen. Quale (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Incredible

This is incredible. In the 1960 Olympiad, 14th Chess Olympiad, Smyslov and Petrosian were reserve players! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com (yes, again!)

The article Chess.com has just been recreated. Unfortunately it was created by an incompetent editor, so unless it is improved soon, it will find itself at the AfD page in the blink of an eye. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne/sandbox MaxBrowne (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: copied it over. thanks --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Keene illustration

If anyone's interested: Talk:De ludo scachorum#Keene's illustration. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Portable Chess Notation deletion debate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portable Chess Notation. SpinningSpark 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

First Saturday

I think the regular "First Saturday" event in Budapest should have its own article. It's been running for 20 years now. While some deride these tournaments as "norm factories" they've been a training ground for many well known GM's. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure if it still runs, but similarly popular with norm seekers was the Third Saturday tournament in Belgrade/Beograd. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Interactive chess board

The Hebrew version of World Chess Championship 2013 contains an interactive chess board which allows the reader to go forward and back with the moves. How hard will it be to adapt it to enWiki to allow interactive chess boards in articles? Will it be feasible? (I dont see why not, but no harm in asking)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I came to know of it because of User:Yoavd. Maybe they could help with getting us a similar template for enWiki? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already asked user קיפודנחש (kipod nakhash?) about it (he occasionally contributes to the English wikipedia). Not sure if he was the developer but he was the main author of the pgn template page. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see we're a bit slow on the uptake. There have been several discussions at the Village pump but due mainly to inertia we have never adopted such a script for the English wikipedia. Here's some more info on the script anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's even a subproject page... ok I'm way behind the eightball. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks very cool. They have a template over there which lets them just type "{{pgn|(game 1 in PGN)|(game 2 in pgn)}}" etc for up to 20 games. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• MaxBrowne, are you working on it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

KnightCap notable?

Does KnightCap establish its notability? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Use of Temporal Differences (machine learning) was quite unusual and experimental at the time. Gets quite a lot of google hits if you want to improve the refs. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Wall is not a reliable source.

I will tag any articles I see that cite Bill Wall with {{Verify credibility|failed=y}}, which comes out as "". Edward Winter gives several examples of Bill Wall making stuff up or embelishing stories, or just being plain wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more background on this? Almost every source with lots of information has factually incorrect information. Almost all news media occasionally have embellishing stories and plenty of things that are plain wrong, that doesn't normally result in removal of all references of it. I'm concerned we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Wall's articles are self-published on an old geocities site. They do not cite original sources, have no editorial oversight and repeat a lot of rumours and legends as if they were facts. As Winter points out, the best sources for historical chess information (contemporary news reports, statements by witnesses to the events) aren't really found on the internet, but they can still be cited. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about Bill Wall's published work as an author and journalist, or the self-published information on his personal website? The former is an RS, the latter is not. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

SPA

Does anyone know what is the deal with this? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing pattern suggests a possible Conflict of Interest. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Volokitin

Toccata quarta and I disagree on the relevance of Andrei Volokitin's (earlier) victories over the current world champion. Could some-one else chime in on this issue, please. Kdammers (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention Volokitin's record against Carlsen unless specific mention of this fact has been made in reliable sources (perhaps because the two have some sort of notable rivalry against each other, to name one hypothetical reason; but AFAIK they don't). Imagine: if we do it for Volokitin, why not do it for all chess players who have played against Carlsen? And should we then remove all such mentions as soon as Carlsen is dethroned, and do it for all the people who've played the new world champion? And on and on it goes... Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is that Carlsen is extraordinarily dominant, yet this one player has a very strong record against him. that seems to me significant.If things change in the future, that's an issue for the future. Kdammers (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But you neglected to mention that the two players have not met since 2008 and that the last of Volokitin's wins came in 2006, when Carlsen was only 2600. The way you wrote it made it sound like he had achieved the record while Carlsen was world champion, which is false. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Good resource for tournament results

This site (run by the Italian chess federation I think) covers a lot of major tournaments going back to the 70's. It's particularly good for world junior, U18, U16 etc championships. It's in Italian but that doesn't really matter if you're citing a crosstable. torneionline.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential Copyright violation in Chess photograph.

Look at the file purporting to show a photograph from 1965. The file was uploaded to Wikimedia as "own work." Doesn't that mean the Wiki user took the photograph? Which would mean that he himself snapped that photograph in 1965, then later converted it to digital form, then uploaded it to Wikimedia over forty years later. That just doesn't sound right does it? I'll link to the photo.

Sopqhalfa (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The uploader is active on the Russian Wikipedia, ru:Обсуждение участника:Skytao, why not ask him. Or ask on Wikimedia commons, as the photo is currently available in every language. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 19:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the Russian wikipedian may be a member of Osnos's family. He also supplied the 2006 photo. Anyway unless the copyright is challenged there's no reason not to assume good faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable?

Erik Kislik (chess player). I am not really sure that this chess player is notable. MrsHudson (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A fair question; I'd say not. As a rough guideline for modern day players, we might typically say GM, or IM who has another claim to notability, such as a coach of top players or a prolific author. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that he is not notable enough for an article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bubba73 and Brittle heaven. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 01:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:GNG and the current state of the article, I'd say no. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your current state of the article criterion for notability is simply wrong. From WP:Notability guideline:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. [...] if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had assumed good faith, you might have realized I meant that there is currently nothing in the article that demonstrates the subject's notability. But you are either unwilling or unable to make that inference—I don't know which it is with you anymore—so you choose to discredit me based on your own interpretation of my words. How predictable and tedious. Now go on and tell me how I've mischaracterized you. There are a number of people watching this forum, of course, but don't let that stop you. Cobblet (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I can see what you meant now, but your ambiguous sentence, combined with your lack of understanding at the Chess.com AfD how WP:OTHERTHINGS is bogus/irrelevant argument for keep or delete, made me suppose you also did not know or understand WP notability policy in this case. (Not bad faith; just observing you. You also accused me of a personal attack against User:MaxBrowne, where that was ridiculous and untrue, and demonstrates you don't understand that policy as well. You can kindly get off my back with your condescending fake smears and reprimands, Cobblet!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had assumed good faith, you would not have made such a condescending supposition. I will not respond to your off-topic comments regarding our previous interactions, but am amused that you were again unable to resist the temptation to bring them up. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you would have assumed good faith, then you would have been able to understand there was ample reason to suppose that your lack of understanding of policy & guidelines needed some helpful clue. (BTW as long as you think there's an audience judging me and I should venture to respond to your accuses if I dare, here's more example of your condescending and baloney patronizing: I'm disappointed that one of our most experienced editors stooped to the very name-calling he accuses the other editor of, and that it happened after what was actually a perfectly civil discussion. Do you mean which discussion resulted in said user MaxBrowne reverting his add at Sicilian Defence with editsum screw it. i try to improve this page, you just quibble over wordings. denigrating user Toccata for endeavoring to conscientiously follow WP:WTA!? A beautiful set of principles you're basing your condescending reprimands on, Cobblet.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. You wouldn't happen to have something to say regarding the notability of Eric Kislik, would you? Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cobblet, I don't get your drift. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. Oh I think I get it: After failed fake attempts to accuse me of bad faith, disingenuousness, reprimand & humiliate me on this board, you now like to ... return to business!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

The GM list

It seems to me the List of chess grandmasters is updated in a somewhat haphazard fashion. When was it last fully up to date? We should be updating it every time FIDE issues a list of new GM titles. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah seems to me that someone's been sticking his nose into Wikipedia business without paying his dues. Hey Maxie, guess what: You're a fucking douchebag. Thanks and Obrigado. Dennys Fanatic (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Dennys Fanatic (talk)