Talk:World Chess Championship 1972

Chess B‑class Top‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible copyvio?

This page is remarkably similar to [1]. Was this page copied from that one or vice versa?

Is Arvind the same person who owns the copyright of www.bobby-fischer.net or did that guy copy from this website?

Alex.tan (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

And Iceland is willing to allow Bobby Fischer to come back? Well, they are welcome to him!*Kat*

This feels like it was ripped from a book. It just doesn't sound like a person wrote it for an encyclopedia, but for a chess book. I'm going to mark this as possible plagarism. CompIsMyRx 03:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of it. Maybe the tone is a little overenthusiastic, but as far as I can see it is not POV and definitely not plagiarized, which should be clear if you look at the history. I wish you would be a little more careful before throwing accusations around. Arvindn 04:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

draw by agreement

The article says "Endowed with a fierce fighting spirit and a hater of agreed draws, Fischer had campaigned against this practice. " Is that correct? Almost all of Fischer's draws were draws by agreement. Is what is meant: short or quick draws by agreement? Bubba73 (talk), 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means draws agreed to when the game is not clearly logically drawn. That's the sense in which the term is usually used, because no one plays on when the game is dead drawn. Arvindn 06:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but did Fischer ever campaign against the practice? Not that I am aware of. Rocksong 09:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name should be FIDE, not Classical

I notice this was renamed the other day. I believe this article should have been renamed FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 not Classical World Chess Championship 1972. The match was held under the auspices of FIDE. The term Classical is mainly used to differentiate from the FIDE championship. p.s. simply World Chess Championship 1972 would be OK too. Rocksong 08:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naming needs to reflect the series of matches both for indexing purposes and to clarify the succession. I am sure that FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 is not right since the FIDE series of matches were a new series started after the schism and there is no continuity with the 1972 match. I chose Classical to demonstrate that there is a continuous lineage between the 1972 match and those of 2000 and 2004. If a further title change is needed then World Chess Championship 1972 would be possible but we would then have three series of titles. BlueValour 17:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think "classical" is really out of place here. World Chess Championship 1972 or World Chess Championship Match 1972 would be much better. The term "classical" is almost exclusively used for the champions and matches of recent years, when there were competing championships. (And if you really think there is "a continuous lineage between the 1972 match and those of 2000 and 2004", then perhaps you can annotate the Fischer-Karpov match for wikipedia.) 145.222.138.134 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlueValour wrote "I am sure that FIDE World Chess Championship 1972 is not right since the FIDE series of matches were a new series started after the schism". With respect, you are wrong. FIDE has been organising world championship events since 1948; and was the only WC organised from 1948-1990. Still World Chess Championship 1972 is OK too. I have no problem with 3 series of titles, because they'd all be of the same format: X World Championship YYYY, where YYYY is the year, and X is either nothing (for 1886-1990), or Classical or FIDE from 1993 to 2006. Rocksong 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the (informal) term "classical world championship" did not come into use until after the 2000 Kasparov-Kramnik match. Kasparov's matches against Short and Anand were the PCA world championship. To retroactively name the 1972 match the "classical" world championship is falsifying history. Skarioffszky 10:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Is that a consensus that we rename it to World Chess Championship 1972? Rocksong 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll go with that. Two points; the nominator will need to use the 'Request moves' procedure since this name has been used before and there will be a whole bunch of double redirects for the nominator to fix. BlueValour 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm too busy for a few days. So either someone else do it, or wait a few days. Rocksong 05:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved, per Wikipedia:Requested moves. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Wasn't this match pretty significant outside of the chess world too? I don't know too much about this or I'd write about it myself, but didn't Soviet chess players pretty much dominate up until Fischer claimed the title through this match? Somebody should add a section about the "aftermath" and the cultural side effects of this match, to simply acknowledge that this match was significant in the psychological battle of the Cold War. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. BlueValour 17:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missing games

Agree that it's silly to discuss every game, but 10, 11, 18, and 21 probably deserve better treatment. Billbrock 08:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]