Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used
Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Notability of chess players

The following is a proposal to be added to Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Once consensus has been reached here, it will be submitted to the official guidelines. Please discuss changes on the talk page. If you support the proposal, please also comment on the talk page so that we can establish consensus.

A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets one or more of the following criteria

1. Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
2. Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship, Chess World Cup or the top section of another tournament widely recognised as one of the strongest chess tournaments of its time. See List of strong chess tournaments.
3. Has won a national championship.

Note: The above was moved from the main WikiProject page since it seems like a proposal for discussion belongs with the discussion rather than where it would go if implemented. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a proposal to the project page about the notability of chess players. This is to help reduce ambiguity when determining whether to create a new article, or when it comes to chess player articles being nominated for deletion. Does the current proposal satisfy requirements? I particularly want to avoid any existing chess player articles slipping through the gaps. Players before the modern era are more difficult, but I think the criteria of having had to play in a strong tournament should cover them. Greenman (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• A "strong tournament" would need to be one where mere participation is considered highly prestigious. The Tata Steel tournament would qualify, but participation in the Chess Olympiad, while worth mentioning if the player is notable, should not be sufficient for notability by itself. For example, the US Virgin Islands team in 2016 includes players with a 1500-level Elo rating, and that is far below a professional or even semi-professional level. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Since we're talking about presumed notability, I would suggest more stringent criteria. I would remove the Olympiad (agree with Sjakkalle's points) and Grand Prix (has anyone played in the Grand Prix who isn't a GM?) from the criteria. I would also remove the "strong tournament" requirement – WP:GNG should capture anyone who has participated in such a tournament. I would suggest adding the Women's World Chess Championship. Cobblet (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I take the point about modern Chess Olympiads containing very weak participants, and so we can remove that. I would prefer not to rely on WP:GNG except as a fallback - the purpose of the proposal is to simplify discussions. Removing the strong tournament criteria though could mean that notable early era players risk not meeting any criteria. For example Max Lange did not earn any titles, play in one of the other listed events, nor win a national chess championship (unless counting the WDSB-Congress), but should be unambiguously notable. Agree that we can also remove the Grand Prix, and rely on the strong tournament criteria. The Women's World Chess Championship is meant to be included, so will specify that too. I will make these changes to the page shortly and we can take it from there. Greenman (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to rely on GNG, the standard Wikipedia policy on this point, than have to argue what a "strong tournament" is, for which having a list of so-called "strong tournaments" containing no explicit criteria for inclusion does not help. Similar to Sjakkalle's concerns about weak Olympiad participants, I have concerns about weak players at older "strong tournaments" – the James Mucklow types. IMO it's easy enough to point to, say, Rod Edwards' excellent website for reliable sources on strong historical players like Max Lange if their notability is challenged. Cobblet (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for initiating this. We really need WP:NCHESS - for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romesh Weerawardane which has been nominated as "failing WP:NSPORTS" when chess is not even mentioned in the NSPORTS guideline. I personally think IMs are notable too - they are still in the top 0.25% of all tournament players, but this seems to be a minority view. I think there should be a criteria that players with titles below GM are notable if they have made a significant contribution outside of tournament competition, eg as a chess author, journalist or trainer.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks like he would fail under the current iteration of the proposal, but not under the first iteration. He has not won a national championship, and is only an International Master. However, he has played in the Chess Olympiad (and happens to be Sri Lanka's only International Master). Greenman (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The suggestion that chess bios need a special notability guideline has been made at least a couple times before in the last 7 or 8 years—you can probably find the earlier discussions in the archives for this talk page. I've always thought that chess does not need a special guideline and that WP:GNG should be sufficient, possibly with WP:SPORTBIO as a backup. I must admit that I think that I'm in the minority as it seems to me that most chess editors who expressed an opinion have favored a special guideline. People have suggested a special guide for both reasons of inclusion and exclusion. Sometimes they have suggested the the special guideline would save a chess bio they think is in danger of unfair deletion, others have suggested that the special guideline is needed to remove chess bios that are not deserving of inclusion. On the whole I suspect that a guideline would lead to a few more deleted bios than it would save, but that's just a guess. Either way I don't think special rules are needed for chess.

I actually lie in the inclusionist side of the spectrum concerning chess biographies as I would need a very convincing argument before I would believe that deleting a chess bio that meets GNG would improve the encyclopedia. In fact, I think a short bio of James Mucklow might be a good addition to the encyclopedia. It's easy to understand why Staunton and Bird and Anderssen and Löwenthal and Kieseritzky played the London 1851 chess tournament, but how did Mucklow get invited? If there isn't much to say about it it can go in the tournament article, but I believe in the value of building the web. Every player in the world championship and women's world championship candidates tournaments should have an article, even if it's very brief. (These tournaments are so large that it's impractical to discuss every competitor in the WC articles themselves, and every one deserves at least a short article with basic biographical information such as date and place of birth unless no sources can be found.) I also believe that the biggest fish get articles, even when they are from very small ponds. (And in chess, the men and women swim in different ponds, so the women are compared against each other.) The best player in Sri Lanka deserves an article. (I thought the best player in every country deserved an article, but then I looked at the FIDE roster for Antigua and Barbuda and changed my mind.) On that point, I'm not sure Romesh Weerawardane meets WP:GNG and apparently he's the 9th ranked player in Sri Lanka. If you are 9th ranked in Russia, Ukraine, USA, etc., you are a world class GM. 9th ranked in Sri Lanka is not that. Weerawardane might be Sri Lanka's only IM, but apparently Sri Lanka has a couple FMs rated about 300 points higher. Quale (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I largely agree with user Quale. It has proven too difficult to draw up any exhaustive list of criteria in the past, because the net that is cast needs not only to catch the deserving non-GMs, but also the top broadcasters, writers, journalists, coaches, organizers, administrators etc. That said, if the above proposal is simply an attempt at some high-level criteria that would give an editor's idea for a biographicsl article a cast-iron chance of achieving notability, then it seems fairly satisfactory to me. I guess you could also add 'Has won a continental or inter-continental youth competition'. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of notability of chess players, Evan Ju is an article that might have escaped my notice until just now as I don't find the claim for notability ("youngest ever New Jersey state chess champion and the first to hold both the NJ Junior and NJ Open titles") to be very compelling. This was at age 15, and the modern benchmark for young chess players is that they should be near GM strength at this age to be considered a prodigy. I think perhaps the prodigy label refers to his chess skill relative to his peers a few years earlier. But the article is well written and it doesn't read like a vanity page to me. Quale (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Brief statistical comment here: if you look at List of chess grandmasters (1780 entries, of which 184 are dead [of which there are 17 without articles], so there are around 1596 living GMs on the list), you will see that the article says that there are currently (November 2017) around 1594 grandmasters on the FIDE rating list (the figure for the February 2018 list is 1595). If you assume that all the blue-links on the list are the 1066 articles in Category:Chess grandmasters, then you get a figure of 530 red-links at List of chess grandmasters, and presumably 17 of those are the dead ones without articles (some of which should definitely have articles) and there are around 513 living GMs with no articles. Some of these will be very obscure, certainly in English-language sources, though all will have some record of their chess-playing activity and the award of their titles can be sourced. Maybe someone can flesh out a list of GMs without articles, if no-one has done that yet, and maintain it in the WikiProject pages somewhere (such as here: "over 500 grandmasters lack articles on the English Wikipedia although many have Wikipedia articles in other languages")? Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Chess Olympiad

I have reconsidered this, and want to rethink the Chess Olympiad criterion, as I think the current guideline is too strict, and could lead to the deletion of a number of players that would otherwise be notable. I particularly want to avoid Wikipedia:Systemic bias, where women as well as players from certain geographical regions tend to be under-represented. We are discussing notability, not strength. In my country, a mid to low-ranking chess playing country, the top players are mostly International Masters. A player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many. They would receive coverage in national media, and it would be a shame to delete them. Also, looking at guidelines for other sports players, players that are the equivalent of weak chess olympiad players are deemed notable. For example, in Rugby Union, players that have played in their national Rugby Sevens Team at the Commonwealth Games are acceptable. This includes teams such as Swaziland and Cayman Island, where the rugby standards are very low. Similarly, in Cricket, players that have appeared in just one Division Six international game are seen as notable. This includes teams such as Norway and Botswana, absolute minnows in cricket. So, I would like to reinstate appearance in a Chess Olympiad as sufficiently notable. A player may be weak, but being the top five or so in their country is still a substantial achievement. If there is a strong objection to this, perhaps appearance in the Chess Olympiad along with the International Master title is a good compromise of strength and notability. Greenman (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG derives from Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and NPOV. It is meant to be an objective test of whether a subject is notable. Notability is not subjective. We are not here to debate whether being in "the top five or so" in any country is "a substantial achievement"; or whether "a player that has finished second in the most prestigious tournament in the country, and has played in the chess Olympiad, is arguably more notable than a low-ranked grandmaster from a country that has many." If such a player does in fact "receive coverage in national media", that is objective evidence of notability and can be used to satisfy WP:GNG.

The purpose of WP:NSPORTS is to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. It is not meant to replace WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated. What other WP:NSPORTS guidelines recommend is irrelevant to the extent that they ignore WP:GNG. Relying on the presence of reliable sources instead of on what certain editors feel to be "notable" should actually reduce the risk of systemic bias. Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

^^ This, basically. I usually add the qualifier "quasi-" to "objective" when talking about notability, since there's plenty of gray area, but it contrasts with the purely subjective measure of editors deciding this or that is important (e.g. participants of a particular tournament). What matters is under what conditions is there almost certainly going to be significant coverage of a subject in reliable sources independent of the subject. "Just" being a GM might even be pushing it, although I would agree that being a GM makes one likely to be notable. No opinion on the tournaments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

if a bishop is blocking a check can the opponets king move into the path of the bishop

this move is like this... a bishop is blocking a castle from checking the king, now can the opponent move a king in the path of the bishop? can you move a king in the path of the bishop even if the bishop is blocking a check — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.74.191 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No; a piece that is in an absolute pin can still deliver check. Think about it this way: If kings could be actually captured in the game, and it was the other player's turn, that player could move his/her bishop and capture your king before it would be your move, so you couldn't capture your opponent's king with your castle because your king would have already been captured by your move. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 04:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability of chess players, redux – time to close this

The current AfD discussion on Irmgard Kärner underscores the usefulness of having some easily applicable criteria for determining notability of chess players in addition to WP:GNG. Since the previous discussion has gone stale, I propose that the following guideline be added to WP:NSPORTS:

A chess player is presumed notable if he or she meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has been awarded the title of grandmaster.
2. Has participated in a World Chess Championship, Women's World Chess Championship or Chess World Cup.
3. Has won a national or continental championship or women's championship.
4. Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad. [per Quale's suggestion below]

While recognizing that there are several people who feel this formulation does not go far enough, I believe it encompasses the sort of chess player that everyone in the previous discussion would agree is obviously likely to meet WP:GNG. I will add this guideline to WP:NSPORTS if:

1. Somebody seconds this proposal; and
2. Any objections that are raised are resolved by the end of March.

I am happy to consider modifications to the proposal. But please keep in mind that the purpose of WP:NSPORTS is not to supplant WP:GNG in situations where objective notability cannot be demonstrated, but to provide "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet" WP:GNG. Cobblet (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Seconded. This is long overdue, as the latest Afd demonstrates - we have an editor saying “I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are.” I would have gone slightly further but I would support everything you have included. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• I don't think that would be helpful. My concern is that that would be used to argue for deletion of other chess biographies, particularly of players prior to 1950. "I have no idea what the chess notability guidelines are" concerns me not in the least, since the same criteria that apply to any biography apply to chess player bios as well. But as I've always said, it's my feeling over the past 5 years that I'm probably the only one who doesn't see the value in having unique criteria for chess player notability, and no one else seems to think it would hurt. But if you think it will help save articles like Irmgard Kärner, I have to tell you those articles are not often deleted now and these kinds of criteria will be used to argue for deletion of other chess bios. Overall I think it would lead to more deletions. But if it would lead to the deletion of Evan Ju then I guess that wouldn't be all bad. Quale (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how a WP:NSPORTS guideline could possibly be used to "argue for deletion of other chess bios" when it explicitly does not supplant WP:GNG. Cobblet (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't think you would see AFD nominations and votes use "doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS criteria for chess players" as an argument? I think we would. Quale (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No doubt we would. In fact exactly that argument has already been made even without such a guideline in place. But if the article nevertheless satisfied WP:GNG, we would simply respond with arguments to that effect and a reminder that meeting WP:GNG is sufficient for notability, as the bolded second sentence of WP:NSPORTS explicitly says. Cobblet (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and there will always be weak or even invalid arguments made at AFD. I will caution that even though by all rights a GNG argument should trump NSPORTS, a not insignificant number of wikipedians do not understand that. One would hope that the AFD closer would understand policy, but experience has led me to not take anything for granted at AFD. Because of this, my guess is that putting chess in NSPORTS would cause more trouble than it would avoid, but that's just my guess. There aren't very many chess article AFDs these days so it would probably be hard to know for sure either way. Basically I don't see the need for this as acutely as others do. I don't think we've had a chess article deleted that I thought should have been kept for a couple years now, although there were a few lost going farther back. I suppose if MrManticore ever returns, I may have reason to reconsider whether my belief that we don't need chess-specific criteria is correct. Quale (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Something something infinite something something human stupidity, but if a closer doesn't understand that WP:GNG trumps WP:NSPORTS I have little doubt that would be a "substantial procedural error" appealable under WP:DRVPURPOSE. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Also, although I don't favor any addition to NSPORTS for chess, if there chess is to be added to NSPORTS I might include "Has earned a team or individual medal at a Chess Olympiad". On the other hand, practically the effect might be nil at least for the men since 1950 since most or all of them would be included under one of the other criteria. It might include some female IMs or WIMs who had successful Olympiads. Quale (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That will actually bring in quite a few men (from Endre Steiner through Sami Khader) and women (Lea Nudelman through Mariola Woźniak), especially back when these were determined by percentage score rather than performance rating, although both Khader and Woźniak got their medals in Baku 2016 by performance rating. (Khader is the first male non-GM to have won a board medal since the switch was made in 2008.) I have no problem with including this criterion if someone else seconds its addition. Cobblet (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would second that addition.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Cobblet, your knowledge of the history of team chess (and other chess subjects too) continues to impress. I'm comfortable with whatever you think is best here. Quale (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've been informed that NSPORTS is only for the manliest and sweatiest of sports. So instead I've added the guideline to our main page: see WP:NCHESS. Cobblet (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Outrageous. Maybe we can set up WP:NMINDSPORTS.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's all right. I should've been more careful and called it a chessboxing guideline. Cobblet (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Further update: The existence of the NCHESS shortcut has been challenged at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 16#Wikipedia:NCHESS on the grounds that it is "misleading." Cobblet (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

We're not having much luck here are we. Thanks for the notice; I've made a comment over there.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The shortcut was kept. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for the record. I didn't see this second thread come up before it was implemented. It's quite clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Aliaga Fernández that people intend this to supplant the GNG/notability standards rather than indicate what chess-related subjects will be notable. If something meets these criteria but has not had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject over a period of time (i.e. WP:N / WP:GNG), it shouldn't be there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

My response to you is the same as my response to Quale: if people misinterpret this guideline, they should be reminded of what it means – which they were in the Aliaga discussion. The guideline's use of the word "presumed" merely mirrors the usage of the word in GNG, which says that the presumption of notability based on that guideline (and by extension this one) is rebuttable and not absolute. Cobblet (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shogi#Shōgi. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Nominated Category:Gambits for merger with Category:Chess openings

Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_21#Category:Gambits. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Diffusion of chess openings into subcategories

More fun in category:chess openings. Now an editor never seen in WP:CHESS has created a bunch of subcategories of category:chess openings and is recategorizing openings articles into those subcats. I don't see the value of this. Listing openings as Open, Closed, Semi-Open, etc., seems to me to be a good example of something that belongs in one or more lists and does not belong in categories. What do you think? 02:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The timing was unfortunate too, right after I raised a Cfm over the Gambits category. This editor seems to specialize in categorizing articles. I don't see any value in sub-categorizing chess openings like this. It seems a bit ludicrous to me to classify the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit as a Closed Game, for example.

Hooper & Whyld:

• close game, or closed game, a game characterized by manoeuvres behind the lines.
• close opening, one that begins 1.d4 d5, a term of no strategic significance.
• open game (1) a game that beigins with 1.e4 e5. These moves sometimes lead to a close game. (2) a game in which pawn exchanges open diagonals, files and perhaps ranks for use by the line-pieces, as distinct from a close-game, when the range of these pieces is restricted.
• semi-close game, an opening in which White commences 1.d4 and Black does not reply 1...d5.
• semi-open game, an opening in which White plays 1.e5 and Black does not replay 1...e5.

MaxBrowne (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

i dont agree. Categorization is helpful to me as a reader. Disagreeing with a specific categorization does not entail that all categorizations are bad. (Besides, multiple categorizations can used allowing the reader to choose whichever categorization is most useful.) I dont like lists myself because, in this case, the list is too long and the categorization used (Informant codes, i guess) is opaque. – ishwar  (speak) 18:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't hate the idea of further categorizing chess openings, but also don't find it particularly necessary. I agree that the (semi)-open/close terminology is often misleading; moreover I think it's a bit anachronistic and isn't so widely used among chess players not named Hooper or Whyld. I wouldn't object to a threefold classification into king's pawn, queen's pawn, and flank and irregular openings. Cobblet (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

To me subcategorizing openings further is just a recipe for stupid "genre wars" of the kind that plague music articles. I really don't see the point. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Shogi stuff on "most wanted" list

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Most_Wanted contains a lot of Japanese names, presumably Shogi players, and other Shogi-related material. This makes it less useful when looking for new articles to create. Maybe we should reorganize the Categories system so that these don't appear under the Category:Chess supercategory? Shogi is of course a major board game in its own right with its own competitions and its own traditions. I always thought treating Shogi as a "chess variant" was rather Eurocentric. I wonder if the Japanese wikipedia classifies chess as a "shogi variant"? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what modern scholarship has to say about it, but if these games are in fact all derived from chaturanga then we could create Category:Games derived from chaturanga to distinguish these from variants of post-shatranj chess. Cobblet (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Major game in its own right" applies also to xiangqi, makruk, and more as well. --IHTS (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD notice for Rasmus Svane

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasmus Svane. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

broken link

The 'random chess article' link: https://tools.wmflabs.org/erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Chess&subcats=1&d=5 fails with a MySQL error. It seems Erwin85 is inactive, so it doesn't make much sense to write on the personal talkpage. Sorry if this is not the proper place for this report. 89.135.154.97 (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

'Notable games' inclusion criteria

Am bringing this here for more input from project members.

Q from Alex Shih: "If such format is standard for chess articles, what makes them "notable" in the first place? Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)"

My two cents:

My take is that The Rambling Man is leaching or conflating his interpretation of word "notable" in secname Notable games w/ that of WP:Notable, which it doesn't mean. I think there are multi qualities that bring games to that sec, for e.g. a game against a famous or significantly higher-rated opponent, or a key game re an important tournament & results, or a brilliantly played game that's perhaps been published in article at ChessBase.com which is an important WP:CHESS source, etc. That said I think the sechead Notable games has been traditionally used on WP as a result of least problematic word choice: Sample games suggests the bio subject is product-like, Example games begs "exemplification of what exactly?", ditto Illustrative games. All those secheads have been tried but less favored.)

Add'l backdrop:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Thx. --IHTS (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not "leaching" or "conflating" anything. We simply do not include a list of things are deemed "notable" without stating why they're notable and offering the reader some objective inclusion criteria, such as "matches against top ten players" or something similar. Otherwise it's just an editor's opinion on why the list contains what it does. I think you need to re-read the wording of the maintenance tag I added, and if you don't think that applies to chess articles, I'd like to know why. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You won't be hearing from me, I'm done w/ this. --IHTS (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Stop personalzing things" you claim? Who wrote My take is that The Rambling Man is leaching or conflating his interpretation? Totally disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC) "Leaching" as in "the bleach leached into the drinking water". (Were you thinking "leech"? Different word.) Totally objective, nothing personal. What is your problem anyway?? --IHTS (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC) I thought you were "done w/ this"? Stick to your word. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Again you misinterpret. Done discussing the embedded list issue w/ you. I don't break my word, ever, A-hole. --IHTS (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC) That you didn't stick to your word is self-evident. Nice personal attack, though, noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC) I did stick to it, Mr. Full-of-Shit. --IHTS (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC) I hardly think so... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree WP:IINFO should apply: "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Lists of game links containing nothing other than unsourced assertions should be removed. I don't think we've ever defined appropriate "objective inclusion criteria", nor do I think it's necessary. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTEVERYTHING ("Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.") provide the standard that should be followed. Cobblet (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these sections as they can easily get bloated - we've got better over the years at cutting them down, and this is just two which is fine. I agree they need to say what is making worthy of being picked out - a win over a much higher ranked opponent, a brilliancy prize, an innovation etc.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree the length is not a problem here, just sourcing. Cobblet (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the definition of inclusion criteria which is the problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, this isn't necessary if the length of the list is appropriate. The claim is that the games are notable: evidence for that claim should be provided. Cobblet (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's called "inclusion criteria". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You said we had to state why the games are notable, and offer "objective inclusion criteria." I am saying that the second part is only applicable to stand-alone lists and not in situations like these. Cobblet (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, see the text on the maintenance tag: This section contains embedded lists that may be poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. Please help to clean it up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant – the tag itself is not Wikipedia policy. Do you have something constructive to add to the comments regarding GNG below? Cobblet (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The existence and consensus for the tag tells you all you need to know. We need to understand what makes this games "notable", and to whom. Right now, there's no such criteria defined, even in the Fischer article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There's consensus for the tag's existence, not your interpretation of it; although I agree with your usage of it at Stefán Kristjánsson. If by "objective inclusion criteria" you meant that editorial judgment should not be exercised to make each individual selection, then I'm not aware of policy that goes that far. Even WP:LISTCRITERIA (and again, it's doubtful that this guideline was meant to apply to lists other than standalone lists) doesn't rule out subjectivity if inclusion is "based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item." The questions it says to "ask yourself" obviously require editorial judgment. Cobblet (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just go back to a very basic point: how do readers (and editors) know what should and should not be included here? What constitutes a "notable" game? Buggered if I know, and I've been discussing this with you lot for a day now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's a fair representation of reliable sources to say that they're notable, they may be included; if it isn't, they shouldn't. Multiple guidelines warn us against exhaustively including every such game if it results in an unwieldy list (WP:CSC, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:ListFormat): if we have to make a selection from these, that should also be done neutrally. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

But that's the point isn't it? How does anyone, especially our readers, know it's a "fair representation of reliable sources"? None of the Fischer sources say the games listed there are "notable", but they do gush with prose from one or two authors about how meaningful those games were. But that's not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Claims like "immediately recognized as an all-time classic", "staple of endgame instructional literature", "most famous and instructive move and is still being cited today", " "made a great impression on the chess world" are not claims about "meaning"; they're claims that these games are well recognized by and hence notable to chess players in general. And when world champions like Botvinnik and Fischer himself consider certain games his best of the 1972 match or just his best game ever, those are claims worth mentioning because of the stature of the person making those claims. I have now rewritten claims that don't focus on who these games are notable to. Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be working through chess articles in due course and tagging every one which has dubious "notable games" entries. All this "in universe" and tacit POV acceptance may have been okay in the past, but it's no longer the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should apply WP:GNG for individual games. Some games such as The Game of the Century are so famous as to merit their own article, others such as Schiffers-Harmonist are sufficiently famous that it would be difficult to imagine an article about the protagonist without including the game. Main point being that the game should be independently covered in reliable sources, rather than merely being the editorial selection of a wikipedian. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, a good example of this being done well is Bobby Fischer#Notable games where there is a source provided for each entry establishing notability.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd apply GNG a little differently to games in a list like this than standalone articles on a game (e.g. I wouldn't expect any of Stefán Kristjánsson's games to have received the same amount of coverage as D. Byrne–Fischer, so the required number of sources would be fewer), but I agree the criteria are the same. Cobblet (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a great example, the second in that list offers no reasoning at all as to why it's more or less notable than any of Fischer's other games. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That second game is the one exception; I'm thinking of removing it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gligoric-Fischer 1961 is quite an awesome game actually, one of the great tactical fights, it's included in My 60 Memorable Games and deserves to be better known. But it is somewhat "editorial" to include this game but not (say) Fischer-Tal from the 1960 Olympiad. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The last one too. So how are notable matches selected for this section? Are they included if Saidy liked them? Or if multiple reliable sources referred to them in isolation of the other matches Fischer played? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, overlooked the lack of a reference but that was Fischer's comeback game, his first for 20 years, and generated enormous coverage. The others are all widely regarded by multiple sources as among Fischer's finest games, not just one writer's opinion.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but where are the multiple reliable sources in this article? I see one or two descriptions of games being "amazeballs" or whatever, but nothing from multiple sources listing these as "among Fischer's finest games". Where are the other of his "finest games"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, it's best not to include too many. These are the obvious choices, spanning his career from prodigy to World Champion to his return from obscurity. I'm not sure it's necessary to list all the multiple sources; each game now has an inline citation.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The claim is that these games are "notable", not that they alone indisputably represent Fischer's very finest games. We do not need multiple sources to show that the claim of notability is verifiable if the single source is of sufficiently high quality. Cobblet (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Mixed messages coming through here. And underlining, once again, why the current situation is unacceptable. No-one here can adequately define why any given game should or should not be included, and certainly no-one is telling our readers why these particular games of Fischer's should be the only ones here. Not serving our readers well at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Readers are well served by content that adheres to Wikipedia's core content policies. Lists that aren't standalone articles should be treated like any other content. No one is explicitly telling our readers why each and every fact in the Fischer article was chosen and why others were not chosen, why they were written up one way and not in another way, or why each image was chosen and others not chosen – there's no "objective criteria" for any of these editorial decisions other than compliance with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. The embedded list of selected games shouldn't be handled differently. Cobblet (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well you nailed it, these embedded lists fail NPOV, who decides what does and does not go in them? Why do we have a maintenance tag specifically for embedded lists? Hmmm, perhaps because embedded lists need to define how items are selected for inclusion. Right now, how does the reader know why those specific ones have been selected? I think we've got enough uncertainty, even between project members here, to acknowledge that the current status quo is not acceptable. Or we could tag all such sections with the same maintenance tag I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Who decides what does and does not go in them? The editors, of course.

These embedded lists fail NPOV: only if they're not a fair representation of the views of reliable sources as to which of the player's games are notable.

How does the reader know why those specific ones have been selected? By consulting the reliable sources the editors should have provided that explain how these games are notable.

Why do we have a maintenance tag specifically for embedded lists? Because of the existence of MOS:EMBED, which the tag's documentation links to. That guideline says: "The content of a list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies", and "Consideration should be given to keeping embedded lists and tables as short as feasible for their purpose and scope: material within an embedded list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail." No mention of definitions in this or in any other content policy. Cobblet (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, no, that's like wrong, wrong, wrong. Readers are not informed what constitutes "notable" here. You keep missing the point. There's no definition as to what "notable" means. Is it a list of games which took a long time? Is it a list of games which were played after 20 years of retirement? Is it a list of games which one writer has seen fit to declare "amazing"? Just like the so-called "good example" of the Fischer list, these kinds of embedded lists had no curation, no fair representation of the views of reliable sources, instead cherry picking a few quotes, mainly from one or two authors, and as such these embedded lists are poorly defined and need to be explained to our readers or else tagged to prevent them being misled that the lists somehow have some kind of selection criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

"Notable" doesn't mean anything beyond its plain meaning: "worthy of notice." Readers don't need to be informed that a word means what it usually means. You're reading into it a meaning it doesn't normally have and one we don't intend it to have: if we did, we would've said "most notable games." You continue to labour under the illusion that all embedded lists must "somehow have some kind of selection criteria." They don't: as I highlighted above, embedded lists only have to comply with the policies that govern encyclopedic content in general. None of the core content policies demand the kind of criteria you're demanding: some sort of "objective" criteria by which NPOV can be assessed. Neutrality is not about objectivity. We're not at FLC, where comprehensiveness is a criterion for promotion, and comprehensiveness for lists whose contents may be open-ended is often easiest to assess against specific criteria. These aren't FLCs; they're not even standalone lists. Cobblet (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. I'm not looking at FLC, I'm looking at WP:V. I will continue to tag articles which have dubious (or no) inclusion criteria for "notable X" as per the maintenance tag. I think you're entirely incorrect, and not serving an encyclopedic approach in any way, shape or form. Embedded lists to define their scope. If you don't understand that by now, we're wasting our time. Chess articles are not exempt from POV or V, so I'll just work my way through those articles which need the assistance. We're not here to serve editors, we're here to help our readers understand why certain items are somehow considered "notable". Without being able to define that or tell our readers why that's the case, we're getting it wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Pardon me for shortcutting discussion a little bit, but reading through this I'm not clear why this is particularly difficult. Apologies if someone has already proposed this and got shot down, but why not just: if a game has been covered by two reliable sources (not including collections/compendia of games e.g. a book of Fischer's games or a single source with every game played in a particular tournament), include it. Whether it's formatted in prose or in a list can vary from article to article. No need to have it meet GNG -- we're not creating a stand-alone list of notable games; we're creating a list of example games relevant to the subject of an article. "Notable" is often used in both informal and wikijargon ways all over the pedia; that's ok. That said, why not just "Example games" or "Sample games" or even just "Games". If the two source criteria makes for an overly long list, discussion on the talk page can determine which should be included, based on the specifics of the sourcing, just like with any other aspect of a subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's better than the current state. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For Fischer, one reliable source is John Nunn. In his book "The world's greatest chess games" he included 8 wins or draws by Fischer: D. Byrne 1956, Tal 1960 (draw), R. Byrne 1963, Panno 1970, Larsen game 1, Petrosian game 7, Spassky game 6, and game 1 of the 1992 match.[6] That's pretty close to the list in the article and (in my opinion if it matters) is has no glaring omissions. Adpete (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth Wilhelm Steinitz seems to have it almost right, although there's still no real inclusion criteria noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agree w/ user Cobblet. And I'm wondering how much of the discussion stems from semantics re word "notable". (For example, the Judit Polgár article uses sechead "Illustrative games". And it has the same purpose & means the same thing as when editors use "Notable games" sechead. So do the same arguments re inclusion definition make sense?: "Why are the listed games illustrative while others are not?" "What is the scope of illustrativeness for the list?" I don't think so. Other games can be illustrative also not just the games listed. Why were they listed? The sechead itself answers that. In who's opinion? An editor of course, who applied editorial judgement.) I tend to think "Illustrative games" is slightly inferior to "Notable games" as sechead, since begs the Q "Illustrative of what?" Nevertheless the answer is also implied: Illustrative of the article subject's play. But I'm supportive of a WP:CHESS convention of using "Illustrative games" sechead instead of "Notable games" sechead, especially if doing so w/ kill potential for an inane debate occurring on same matter in future (presuming again that impetus for debate might be due to semantics surrounding a word, and that "Illustrative games" as default sechead replacing "Notable games" can mostly nullify that). p.s. There currently exist hundreds of bio articles w/ sechead "Notable games" -- a whole lot! --IHTS (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comparing the "Notable games" in Wilhelm Steinitz with those in Bobby Fischer, our notes to the latter are larded with superlatives, whereas our notes to the former tend more towards the technical explanation of what happened in the game. I think the former are more useful to the reader. I have argued in earlier discussions in favor of the former. The counter-argument, which is not without merit, was that the public reaction to Fischer, i.e. his celebrity status, was itself notable, and it's OK to talk about it in the article. But in describing the selected games, I think the balance should fall more toward talking about the game, than toward talking about the reaction to it.

I do not think the article itself should talk about "inclusion criteria". Inclusion criteria are of interest to us, the editors, but of almost no interest to casual readers. May I suggest that an appropriate place to describe inclusion criteria for "Notable games" would be as a subsection of WP:Wikiproject Chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No, readers deserve to understand why certain games are consider "notable" while others are not. And they certainly wouldn't give two hoots about this Wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, tastes differ, I suppose. When I was a kid, whenever I discovered an encyclopedia I hadn't seen before, I would look for the entries for Lasker, Capablanca, etc., hoping to see a game that I didn't already know about. I didn't much care what the "inclusion criteria" for the game were; I just wanted to play it over.

I really do not know if our project pages are the "right" place. If a reader starts getting interested in being an editor, he will soon find stuff like the Five Pillars, etc., and will learn as much as he needs to about general inclusion criteria. But if he wants to know about inclusion criteria for specific things like the "Notable Games" sections of chess biographies, whatever would lead him to our project? It's a legitimate question.

But articles themselves cannot be explicit about their own inclusion criteria. Wikipedia articles in general do not explicitly state (or restate) the rules that editors are expected to follow with creating or editing articles. "The first rule of fight club is, you do not talk about fight club." Bruce leverett (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

But articles themselves cannot be explicit about their own inclusion criteria. Wikipedia articles in general do not explicitly state (or restate) the rules that editors are expected to follow with creating or editing articles. absolutely incorrect. That's precisely why we have tags like {{famous}} and {{Cleanup list}}. The vague/dubious/POV/personal inclusion of so-called "notable" events is discouraged, it's not encyclopedic at all. This isn't Fight Club, this is an encyclopedia, remember? Keeping secrets from our readers is not constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A general note may be suitable for weaker players as their games are often notable simply due to the strength of the opponents. I cannot think of one general note that would work for top players, however, so the description of the game should serve as an explanation as to why it is included. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

A description of the game from one individual being used as inclusion criterion would be inherently POV and therefore fall foul of NPOV. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The description(s) would be covered in RS, along with the game itself. In any case, why did you say the Steinitz article has it "almost right"? And can you give an example of what a note about the inclusion criteria should be for top players? These sections in general should be improved but I am not sure how to go about doing what you suggest to do to improve them, as a one line note about the games does not seem to me to be feasible. If a note is required for each individual game, I think it could be explained in the description. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what you are getting at. I'll try one more time, but I will then have to quit, to avoid repeating myself.

I'm looking at the list of Notable Games in Wilhelm Steinitz. For each item, there is an explanation of why the game is notable, along with a citation of some authority, usually a well-known chess writer who included Steinitz's game in his own book. This looks quite reasonable to me, and I recall following that pattern a couple of years ago when I edited one of the games in Bobby Fischer.

But, you're saying, it's not enough. What would you like to see that isn't there? Pick a specific example. Or, if you would prefer, I'll pick one: the game with von Bardeleben. What sentence or sentences would you add to this, or how exactly would you modify it?

I'm not trying to ask a trick question. I think the list from Wilhelm Steinitz was well put together, but if you have a suggestion to improve it, let's get down to brass tacks. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

User:The Rambling Man is not a chess player, he's a wikipedian. (He's abrasive and has had a few run-ins with arbcom but never mind about that.) Attempting to paraphrase him, his concern is that selection of notable games for a player is arbitrary, at the whim of an editor, usually uncited, and that some of the games selected may not in fact be notable. In the case of weaker players especially, this is probably true. I think we should have a certain minimum standard, e.g. publication in a chess book by a reputed author, publication in a reputed journal such as Chess Informant or New In Chess, publication in a reputed newspaper column (e.g. Kavalek, Barden, Short), Best Game or Brilliancy prize etc, and that such a source should be provided with any game selected. In the case of elite players like Fischer, I'm not so fussed about why "Game A, Game B and Game C" were selected and not "Game X, Game Y and Game Z". Such lists can only ever be subjective as far as what they include or exclude, but any game that is included should be able to be justified. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You actually know absolutely nothing about me Browne, so desist from claiming you do so. And if it's "never mind about that", why bring it up in the first place? Truly pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What about criteria for inclusion in notable games lists? Do you agree/disagree? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy if some kind of objective approach is taken and that our readers understand what that is, not for some personal "favourite games" thing to be there. The Rambling Man (talk)

Wikipedia is about neutrality, not objectivity. Personal biases related to all forms of content are eliminated by building consensus for a neutral representation of reliable sources. Embedded lists are just one way of presenting content and are not an exception to the rule. The establishment of arbitrary criteria is irrelevant as it is just as prone to bias if it is not done through consensus-building. Cobblet (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

No-one said anything about the establishment of arbitrary criteria, just that lists, embedded or otherwise, of "notable" items need to define what makes them notable. It's pretty obvious to anyone that you can't and shouldn't apply an "arbitrary" set of criteria here as that can't work across the spectrum of chess players, but nevertheless there's absolutely no reason why our readers should be left wondering why certain Wikipedia editors believe some games to be somehow "notable". No good reason at all. So time to shift your thinking on this one. After all, and as I mentioned a few times, this scenario is precisely why we have maintenance tags to note such issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course readers should be informed as to what makes these games notable to the chess world as a whole. My point has always been that that kind of notability can be demonstrated using reliable sources. You seem to want something more than that. Whatever that thing may be, my impression up until now is that it comes from you alone and isn't supported by any policy, which makes it seem arbitrary to me. Unless you drop your perpetual self-righteousness and explain your concerns more clearly, I'm not going to engage you further. Building a consensus isn't about shifting people's views, but incorporating their concerns; and I can't figure out what it is you're concerned about that can't be fixed through the use of reliable sources and consensus-building discussion. Cobblet (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Then you simply don't understand the problem. We fixed the original problem weeks and weeks ago, with a very suitable solution, perhaps you should familiarise yourself with that as a good example of how to address the nebulous "notable" issue for our readers. In the meantime, take your personal attacks and go away. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't share your understanding of the problem. The "solution" at Stefán Kristjánsson demonstrates exactly what I mean by arbitrariness: it's not clear to anyone why only games against players rated 2600 at the time can be notable. The criterion that was chosen is no more arbitrary than the selection of the games itself: adding the criterion accomplishes nothing. The problem I would originally have had with the selection was that there were no sources referring to these games as notable: that problem was solved when those were provided. I will refrain from commenting on what you should do if you refrain from commenting on what I should do. Cobblet (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes it 100% clear as to why those games are there. And what you must do, not should do, is refrain from making personal attacks. So when you're ready to discuss this without doing such, I may continue, but until then, you may have the final word as this is not achieving anything other than giving you a platform to attack me. And I'm not prepared to tolerate that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that criterion made it clear for you. We'll just ignore the readers who might wonder why only wins against 2600+ players were given, or why only these examples were chosen when Kristjansson also defeated other players over 2600. They'll just have to shift their thinking too. Cobblet (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is going to be lengthy, so I am shifting things back to the left margin.

Since the initial flap over Stefán Kristjánsson, The Rambling Man has applied his tag to several Wiki chess biographies: Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, Emmanuel Lasker, Alexander Alekhine, and Magnus Carlsen. So I decided to visit these to see what the fuss was about.

The one I liked best was Emmanuel Lasker. There are seven games in the Notable Games section. I recognized four of them from just the names and the date. Of the others, I recognized two of them after I had started to play them over. Only in the case of Steinitz-Lasker 1899 am I really unsure that I have already seen the game.

Bear in mind that I am not a Lasker historian, or a chess historian of any kind except to the extent that I have been editing chess Wiki for a couple of years. The reason I am familiar with these games is because chess has a "canon", and they are part of it. Every one who has studied chess has been exposed to this canon. Also bear in mind that when I was exposed to these games, decades ago, it was already several decades since Lasker had died, but it was still decades in the future before there was Wikipedia, or even before there was an Internet. There is no other explanation for my familiarity with these games, than that they are part of the "canon". Note that the canon is much larger than the contents of List of chess games.

It is perfectly natural to call the games section of Lasker's article "Notable games", given that the games are part of the canon. Conversely, the fact that a game is in the canon, seems like a perfectly normal and natural reason for including it in a "Notable games" section. How do we know what's in the canon? The usual Wiki definition of "Notable" is just fine for this. In Lasker's article, every game comes with a citation of some source, usually a textbook or a game collection or something. What's not to like? Well, OK, the caption for one of the games is not too helpful. That is Steinitz-Lasker 1899: "The old champion and the new one really go for it." But other than that, everything seems in order.

When I went to the articles about Staunton and Anderssen, things were not so nice. Neither article has a single reference to a source regarding any game in its Notable Games section. I surely cannot fault The Rambling Man for placing his tag there, although I would think some less esoteric tag such as "citation needed" would have been adequate.

I haven't gotten to Alekhine yet. I went to Magnus Carlssen, and I soon realized that it had its own problems. Two of the captions are not sourced, and all of the remaining four have sources that are news articles. While an article may be an adequate source for the claim that Carlsen beat Topalov, it is not an adequate source for the claim that the game was notable. As long as Carlsen is World Champion or anything close to it, all his games will be in the chess news. There have to be higher criteria for promotion to Wiki.

There are several reasons why it is problematic to define notability for games by players like Carlsen; and these apply not only to him, but to players who are still active in international chess, such as Anand and Kramnik, as well as those only recently retired, such as Kasparov. The spotlight shining on Carlsen makes all his games look noteworthy now, but most of them will eventually be largely forgotten, the same as with past World Champions such as Lasker. Moreover, for recent players, the textbooks and game collections that we ordinarily rely on for the judgement of notability haven't been written yet.

The caption to the first game in the list is, "At the age of just 13 years, Carlsen had serious winning chances in a rapid game against Garry Kasparov, who was ranked No. 1 in the world at that time." This doesn't even tempt me to play over the game, let alone persuade me that it is notable. The caption to the second game is, "This was Carlsen's first win against a 2800+ player." So, it may have been personal milestone for him, but that criterion means next to nothing for me. The other four captions are plausible, but I can reach out to the Web any month and find Carlsen games that have more to interest me than these.

So, I'm unhappy about the general condition of the Notable Games list in Carlsen's article, and I am not sure I have helpful constructive suggestions for making things better. I think we just have to be exceedingly careful about building Notable Games lists for modern players.

By the way, I think that a "Notable Games" section is optional in a chess biography, even of an undoubtedly great player. Milan Vidmar, which I have recently worked on, doesn't have one, and I couldn't think of any really obvious choice, although his win with the Budapest Gambit against Rubinstein is good for a laugh. Perhaps the Slovenian chess canon has some choice games by Vidmar, but I don't know them.

This brings us around to where the discussion started, which was with Stefán Kristjánsson. After some initial dialogue, Hrodvarsson made a valiant attempt to improve that article's Notable Games list by, among other things, digging up news articles (by a chess grandmaster) about the games. Besides being "only" news articles, these are in Icelandic, which means that although they might be adequate for Icelandic Wiki, they are even less helpful for demonstrating notability for English Wiki.

Nevertheless, I would be happy to defer to the judgement of Hrodvarsson on this matter, because he is a competent editor who probably knows a good deal more about Stefán Kristjánsson than I do. But what happened next was a weird twist. Editor Ritchie333 drove by and changed the title of the section from "Notable Games" to "Games", with the comment, "simplified". I can't help but think that this was kind of like a joke or a prank. Although I have complained about how problematic it is to designate notable games by modern players, I don't think the solution involves some players' articles having "Notable Games" while other players just have "Games". So I would encourage Hrodvarsson to either restore the article to having "Notable Games", or to set it to having no games. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right. You killed the debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Chessmaster 2000

For the video game Chessmaster 2000, one user has been making some assertions about how the game plays without providing a source to back it up. Does anyone have something that can help there? 208.47.202.254 (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles related to world championship cycles

In my opinion the qualification portion of a world championship cycle (e.g. Interzonals, Candidates tournaments and matches) should be covered in separate articles from the main world championship article. Of course the main article would link to and summarise the articles relating to the qualification process. We have ample precedent for this on the wider wikipedia, e.g. 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification. I disagree with User:Adpete's edit, turning the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article into a redirect. The tournament itself is surely notable enough to justify its own article (it's even the subject of a famous book). Likewise I disagree with the tag that was placed on Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To me it's all about quantity. If there is a lot of information about the tournament (as is the case for Candidates Tournament 2018, for instance), then a separate article is warranted. But if the article is so short 100% of it is incorporated into the main World Championship article anyway, then what is the point of a separate article? Adpete (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That is an argument for expanding the Zurich 1953 chess tournament article rather than merging it. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with both of you, if that's possible. I strongly believe that the general rule is that if we don't have much to say about the Candidates Tournament then it should be a section in the championship article rather than a standalone. I also agree that we should have enough to say about Zurich 1953 to justify a standalone article, although the article is over 8 years old and still doesn't say anything. The description of the tournament found in World Chess Championship 1954 is better. I think it's much better to start in the parent article and WP:SPINOUT to a standalone article only after it is justified, but when an article such as this already exists and I think it can be expanded to justify a standalone I might leave it alone rather than doing a merge and redirect.

All that said, in my opinion a greater problem is so many World Championship articles say next to nothing about the championship match itself at all. World Chess Championship 1954 is a great example. The entirety of the reporting about the WC match is:

"The match was played as best of 24 games. If it ended 12-12, Botvinnik, the holder, would retain the Championship. [ match crosstable ] Botvinnik retained the Championship."

That's not good. I think it behooves us to expand the sections on the WC matches themselves before worrying too much about the Candidates. Quale (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles on wikipedia will always be created and updated according to the interests, motivation levels and whims of individual editors, without much regard for relative importance or priorities. That's why pokemon characters get articles while woman scientists do not. So if someone wants to write up a candidates tournament while the article on the championship match itself is still inadequate, that's totally fine. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

As a general statement, that's obvious and undeniable. In the specific case at hand it seems to miss the point a bit. The Candidates has Zurich 1953 chess tournament which is little more than the crosstable, and the 1954 WC match has the two sentences I quoted before. There are no facts in evidence here that suggest anyone wants to write up a Candidates Tournament. Adpete asked why we have a separate article for Zurich 1953, and given that it hasn't really been improved in 8-1/2 years, I'd say that's a reasonable question. Quale (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

wikidata chess games DB

hi.

(background): some of you may remember old proposal that was brought up twice in the past, and despite more support that opposition, never got anywhere. it's about adding a chess-game viewer widget, such as on most chess sites, which consumes PGN (or algebraic notation) to display and replay the game. such tool is installed in hewiki, and you can see it in action Here.

a user on hewiki which function as the local "WikiProject Chess", floated the idea to start building (and maintaining) games database on wikidata, so the games will be available on all wikis. this will enable, e.g., to place a single template on a player's page, with some behind-the-scenes Lua module that will suck the data from wikidata, such that all the available games where this person is one of the players will be listed, possibly with "click to replay" functionality that will bring up the widget and display the game.

the beauty of it is that once the work of creating the infrastructure is done (template, lua module, some JS gadgets etc.), by maintaining the wikidata data, every single wiki in any language will be able to show it for any player with article on this wiki.

similarly, any article about some chess event (e.g., World Chess Championship 2016), will be able to show (and replay) all the games automagically, by including a single template.

with all this data in place, some other "magic" is possible, e.g., a template similar to {{Chess diagram}} can learn to operate by declaring the game, the specific move, and the caption, something like

{{chess diagram WD
| game = Q1234567
| move = 41d
| caption=Board after 41...b6 : extremely stupid move! how could he do it?
}}

or even displaying multiple positions from the same game, say

{{chess diagram WD
| game = Q1234567
| move1 = 11l
| move2 = 18d
| ... etc.
| caption1 = whatever
| etc.
}}

which will display several diagrams from the same game, without having to build the diagram by hand - just state the game and the move and everything else happens programmatically, as long as this game is available in wikidata.

note that these things are not necessarily related: once this database is established, different wikis can decide to use it in different ways, such as interactive replay (as we do in hewiki), clever templates for diagrams (as outlined above), or simply to display a list of games for the player and event, with the desired details from the metadata when present.

this idea sounds compelling enough, and i hope we'll go forward with it even without if it turns out enwiki chess community is uninterested, but i wanted to float it here and see what this community thinks, and hear more views and ideas regarding such project.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I love the game player widget! I've wanted something like that for years for Wikipedia! Can it be added in English now? I'd love to test it out.

I'm less interested in the database idea, because that requires more expertise, e.g. the ability to go over and edit another wiki, presumably in something like Wikisource. I think it's fine to just have the widget and then when a suitable game is found, the editor simply cuts+pastes the pgn.

In any case, the widget in English is the logical first step, and I would certainly use it. Adpete (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

the proposal to add my pgn viewer to enwiki went twice through "proposals" (some of it can be found by searching "pgnviewer" in the archives of this page), and in both cases was "sabotaged" by well-intentioned editors that screamed "i can do better", derailed the proposals, and did not follow through. if you want to try and push this through, you are more than welcome. if the community will decide to accept the proposal, i will be more than happy to help as much as i can to deploy it here. for reference, when these proposals were discussed, i was asked (and delivered) to stand up a demo on the test wiki ([test.wikipedia.org]), and even got me "admin" rights there, so it won't be too much or a stretch to repeat the process (alternatively, if anyone wants to .

assuming the enwiki community is not interested in this widget at this time, i would still appreciate input regarding wikidata game DB - how desirable is it, how can it be used best once it's there, how it should be structured, etc. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like fun. Some of the "notable games" in our biographies are just links to chessgames.com, but some are actual game scores, and I would certainly try to use this widget for them. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)