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

Pawn Structure needs inline cites

The Pawn structure article is badly in need of inline cites (as of this note, the fairly long, "high-importance" rated article contains a single one), so I went ahead and tagged it. I wouldn't like to drive-by tag, but the article seems to be well-developed in terms of its listed (uncited) sources, which I don't have before me. I also don't think that listing basic info on the topic via other sources would be too helpful in this well-developed article's case, so I mention it here to brainstorm myself, and suggest the work to others. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the lack of inline citations is a problem with this article.

The article uses vocabulary that I had not seen before to describe various pawn structures. When I saw "Boleslavsky Hole", I guessed that it was named for the Boleslavsky variation of the Sicilian defense, in which that formation can arise. But I do not know the origin of "Rauzer formation". Perhaps it is because I read chess instruction books many years ago, and they are using different vocabulary now. If that's my problem, then I would be happy if a source were given for the name given to each type of position. Or perhaps some Wikipedia editor made up this vocabulary. That would be bad; we should not be making up names for types of pawn structure. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps some bold revamping is in order. The current article does make a nice structural development of basic types (about 30 or so), but this is the whole problem (according to whom). And each sub-section tends to be in bullet-format. I could maybe work up an early "overview" section but that's about all, nothing more substantive or addressing existing content. MinnesotanUser (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Harassment of women in chess?

Hi WikiProject,

I'm posting this on behalf of a user who flagged this story on Discord just now and seemed reluctant to create an account. It concerns an unpleasant story about harassing mail sent to women in chess. I have not evaluated these sources, and some are in Russian, which I do not speak, but it sounds like something we may want to include in e.g. women in chess. For this and other reasons a section on harassment (or perhaps an expansion of the sexism section) seems merited, but more research is needed. Dropping here in case someone else might be interested: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Latvian IM gained his title in suspicious circumstances. Certainly he wouldn't be notable enough to get an article under normal circumstances. It's a sordid story and I'm not sure if I really want to add it to wikipedia unless it gets wider publicity outside of Russian language publications. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD for individual TCEC seasons

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TCEC_Season_21. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 in chess

The page 2022 in chess is a disaster. It's all mixed up, the two tours (GCT and CCT) should have their own box (not to mention that the names reported now are wrong). "FIDE events" doesn't make much sense, they have a new website for the world championship cycle, maybe we can highlight those events in the same way. Gibraltar wasn't open (and not relevant either). The World Team Championship is missing. Take care. --95.232.2.137 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest I don't pay much attention to the "year in chess" articles, their format is very inconsistent and no standard has really evolved. Not even sure wikipedia really needs them. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

This template from German wikipedia is pretty cool

It gets a player's rating history from wikidata, which in turn gets its data from FIDE and Olimpbase. Worth copying for English wikipedia? Template:Elo-Diagramm MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, we already have it at Template:Elo chart. Fun example is Alexandru Crisan.

Elo development

MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References

First sentence of "Castling" article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Castling#Wording_Part_2

Need help settling a dispute. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Promotion article

Need help settling a dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Promotion_(chess)#Wording ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Scholar's mate" and "Fool's mate" articles

(This isn't a third feud.)

Hello, everyone. I present to you a question: do we move Scholar's mate and Fool's mate (lowercase m) to Scholar's Mate and Fool's Mate (uppercase M)? Here are my main points for doing this:

1. Most sources seem to use an uppercase M; thus, the page move would conform the spelling to general usage.
2. The two aforementioned mates are technically openings, and opening names are always capitalized.
3. Both of these articles use uppercase all the way through anyway; the titles are the only outliers.

Thanks for your consideration! ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:GAMECAPS seems to agree that chess openings should be capitalized. (Although of course they are not technically openings.) I would boldly move the pages, if reverted, start a WP:RM. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly indifferent, but I note that one of my most respected sources, Hooper & Whyld's The Oxford Companion to Chess, uses lower case for both words in its entries for "fool's mate" and "scholar's mate". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I too would think of these as checkmate patterns first and foremost, not openings. (I once saw an actual tournament game go 1.e4 g6 2.d4 f5 3.ef gf 4.Qh5#. That's a fool's mate, not a Reversed Fool's Mate Deferred.) And every entry in Checkmate pattern uses lower case for "mate". Cobblet (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh really? I was under the impression that Fool's Mate is very specifically a sequence in the opening in which White, on their first two moves, advances their f- and g-pawns, whereupon Black, on their second move, plays Qh4 and delivers mate. This is in accordance with every definition of the term I've ever heard—every definition, that is, until yours. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

An opening is the beginning of a chess game, not the whole game. Fool's Mate begins with 1.f3, Barnes Opening. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes in the air

Looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2022-03-27/Discussion_report#Major changes to WP:NSPORT, I thought perhaps the chess project should be paying attention, if we aren't already. Yeah, chess is not a sport; but chess players think it is. Proposal 5 particularly caught my attention. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't think chess is a sport either: we once asked to add the WP:NCHESS guidelines to NSPORT but were rebuffed. So Proposal 5 may not be applicable to chess biographies, but this may be a moot point since GNG still applies to chess biographies regardless of NCHESS or NSPORT. It surprises me that Proposal 1 did not achieve consensus. Cobblet (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Got a beef with one of the participants of those RfC's, he snow closes things before the discussion has run its course. Only uninvolved editors should ever do that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I noted those changes to NSPORT. Causing a lot of issues in association football, etc. I'd like a clarification on FIDE Master. Does this confer eligibility in NCHESS? --Whiteguru (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

NCHESS mentions Grandmaster, but not the two "lesser" titles, International Master and FIDE Master. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Question

Should Two Knights Defense, Traxler Counterattack be moved to just Traxler Counterattack, like Two Knights Defense, Fried Liver Attack was moved to just Fried Liver Attack? 9ninety (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Checkmate with three knights

It seems to me that three knights can force checkmate without using their king, but I don't have a reference (and I have a lot of references). This is mentioned in Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame. Does anyone have a reference for this? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Both Two knights endgame and pawnless chess endgame are citing Fine pp. 5-6, where it's talking about the three knights endgame, and the example definitely involves the king helping the three knights. "... without using their king" sounds like an unusual stipulation, why would anyone care whether or not the king helped out? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I was just wondering. I've tried it about five times against the computer, K & 3N vs. K, but not using my king, and always forced checkmate with just the knights. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Article on Jaime Santos Latasa urgently needs work

Jaime Santos Latasa is rapidly rising in the world ranking. I created a stub about him in March when he entered the Top 100 as No. 96. He subsequently improved to No. 81 in April and now No. 66 in May. The article is still just the stub that I created, in stark contrast to articles about other players of similar rank. I linked the stub to the articles in Catalan and Spanish that have more info on him – perhaps someone could use one of those to expand the article? Who knows where he'll be in the ranking in June... Joriki (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of proposed additions to Four-player chess

 You are invited to join the discussion at sandbox "Four-player chess" with proposed additions. Bedfordres (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

For reference, this is related to WP:THQ#Look at my sandbox?. The OP wants to make some major changes to Four-player chess and has worked up a new version for the article in User:Bedfordres/sandbox. Perhaps some of the members of WP:CHESS can help him sort through this and assess the sanbox content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

==Discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Four-player chess § Content Changes. Bedfordres (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ==

minor adjustments to the infobox. I plan to overhall the start section, add a definition section, overhall the history section, overhall the rules section, add a strategy section, and build upon the further reading/links section. For what I plan to add (mostly, not everything is different) to my sandbox, please see that. It should be noted that I'm concerned about: Too much information to impare clarity. Secondly, I don't think the sourcing is quite right, but I believe that it is up to wikipedia standards at least. anyways