Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.15.137.192 (talk) at 06:35, 23 July 2010 (→‎Chess books). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPChess Navbar Skip to: Bottom of page

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Notability of chess players

The following are of doubtful notability.

What do you think? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vladimir Okhotnik is quite notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree about Vladimir Okhotnik. I added him because he is only an IM which normally is not enough. He peaked at a poor time for recieving chess titles. Regards, SunCreator (talk)
Previous discussions have broadly favoured the inclusion of IMs/lesser titled players only if they are notable as national champions or international junior champions and the like. Exceptionally, if they are prominent in other facets of chess, like writing, coaching, then that may also be sufficient. I'd certainly support keeping Okhotnik, who has a few areas covered. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the others, I'd say they all have fair claims except Corbin - playing daft openings and beating a good player is really insufficient notability in my opinion. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should review many articles on IMs. While some of them even more notable than many GMs, there are a lot whose significance is quite questionable. --MrsHudson (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even Corbin though has played in many Olympiads. If competing at the Olympic Games is enough for notability, why not the chess equivalent? I think we need to come up with a proper written WP:CHESS guideline for notability as thses kind of queries come up regularly. I would agree with Brittle Heaven that while being an IM alone is not enough, one should look at other factors such as playing strength (several IMs of the past were actually GM level, eg Hartston), competitions won, writing and activities outside chess. Fred Waitzin for example, easily qualifies because of Searching for Bobby Fischer. Pereira is a national champion. Benson is notable as a professional poker player. I do wonder why SunCreator thought the notability of these three in particular could be "doubtful."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either because they are bottom importance or they have no references and are subject to Blp prod and deletion. I've been through a process of referencing Blp chess players and with the remaining list I thought I'd ask about notabilty first rather then reference them and later have them be deleted as not notable. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many GMs now that I don't think that every GM is automatically notable. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think this also, but on balance I feel it helps draw a clean line at GM's as the information in easy to verify(for living players at least). I do think it might be wise to come to some sort or agreement on notability that could be added to WP:NSPORT. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present, we don't have articles on all GMs, probably because we don't have editors willing to take the time out to write those articles. However, I think it is worth going a bit out of the way to rescue any GM articles put up for deletion. Certainly, if there is enough sourcing to assemble a reasonably informative stub article on a GM, I would opine to keep it. The number of GMs in the world is a bit less than 1000, which is not an unmanagable number. At the very least, GMs get a fair amount of attention on their national chess scene when they obtain the title. Even in large countries such as the US, I often see new GMs profiled on the front cover of Chess Life. As a rule-of-thumb, GMs are notable, while lesser players (IM or lower) need some further achievements to attain notability. Jeremy Silman once said in an interview that "IMs are weak!", and since Silman himself is an IM, I think we should take his word for it (although "weak" is a relative term). The fact that I, a 1400-rated nothing, have defeated two IMs in internet games also supports Silman's assertion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at a lot of the lower GM articles, there are few links to them and they are not read very often. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note: according to FIDE records there are 1266 living GMs, with 6 GMs new to the May 2010 FIDE rating list compared to March. About 125 GMs are deceased. Quale (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six new GMs in 2 months. I think there used to be individual years without any new GMs. Two or three per year was typical. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article might not be read that often doesn't mean we shouldn't have them - an encyclopedia should be comprehensive. As GM is the highest title a chess player can obtain, it is still a prestigious award. I think GMs should be regarded as automatically notable and we should aim to have articles on them all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magesh Chandran Panchanathan

Just now I created Magesh Chandran Panchanathan article. When I wanted to add it to the Index of chess articles I saw there... Magesh Panchanathan. :-) What can we do now? --MrsHudson (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there's any precise protocol one should follow, but in the past we've just transferred any unique info from the smaller article into the longer one and deleted the smaller article. It happened with 'Ilya Smirin' and 'Ilia Smirin' I seem to recall. Brittle heaven (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I say delete the smaller article, I mean delete the article text and turn it into a simple 'redirect'. Incidentally, does anyone want to comment on the reproduction of a full GM-annotated game? Is this a breach of copyright, or permissable provided it's credited (which it is)? Brittle heaven (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is a copyright violation here. But of course, I am not sure. --MrsHudson (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moves are not copyrightable but analysis and annotation is. I haven't looked at this particular one, but if it is an exact reproduction of someone's annotation, that is a copyright violation. If it is reworded it is probably OK. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions the author of analysis (Lubomir Kavalek) and there is an external link to the newspaper. Is this still considered a copyright violation? --MrsHudson (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. It would be best to ask somewhere like Village Pump to get better advice. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea but I am not sure how useful is to have annotated games on a general Encyclopedia anyway.  Dr. Loosmark  19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I merged two articles into one and redirected the Magesh Panchanathan to Magesh Chandran Panchanathan as the latest is of much better quality and has correct title. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Loosmark that an annotated game is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It should be removed.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with annotated games. We have hundreds of such articles. --MrsHudson (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're appropriate in biographies, which should be about a person's life. I would be surprised if any of our GA or FA bios have them. If the annotations have not been published before then it's original research, and if they have then it's a breach of copyright.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If this logic is correct, then Wikipedia can not exist, since any article in it either contains an original research or violates copyrights. We all know how it works. Same with the annotated games. They can simply be modified and supported with appropriate citations. By the way, we have good articles that contain annotated games and nobody has complained about them. --MrsHudson (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "technical draw"?

I thought that a "technical draw" was a draw by stalemate, threefold, 50-move, or impossibility of checkmate, i.e. not by agreement. I was reading in a book by Evans today that a technical draw is only when checkmate is impossible. Is that correct? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage(so not book term) is that technical draw equal theorical draw. So not as Evans states. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In either case, it is wrong at Draw (chess)#Terminology (and that is my fault). I'd like to clear up exactly what a "technical draw" is. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evans on Chess, page 12, defines it as when checkmate is impossible and gives examples of king vs. king and king and minor piece vs. king. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I always thought that a technical draw is a position where the stronger side cannot win no matter how good it plays - if the weaker side plays correctly.  Dr. Loosmark  15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That agrees with SunCreator above, but is there a reference for it? I checked several books, and the only source I've found is the one by Evans. Unless a source (or two) for that is found, I think it will have to go with what Evans says (or be removed). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is Evans a reliable source? He's not exactly known for diligence in his chess writing.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now it is the best I know for the definition of a technical draw. Perhaps it should be omitted from Draw (chess)#Terminology because it doesn't seem to be used that frequently and the definition doesn't seem to be clear. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with doing that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And this quote about grandmaster draws at draw by agreement doesn't make sense: "Unless you are of the calibre of Botvinnik – and who is – you cannot hope to play at full power day after day. The technical draws are a necessary means of conserving energy. " Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Alexander Alekhine's name

Someone has put a {{fact}} on a note at the top of the lead of Alexander Alekhine, and I agree per WP:V. I've searched for over and hour, and look through my meagre set of books, and got nothing. From most important to least, I'd love get citations for: --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That "Alekhine" is A's French of A's preferred pronunciation.
  • How the rest of A's family pronounced the name. I remember a story that A. dislike that pronunciation because he thought it sounded Jewish.
  • That "Alechjin" is the common transliteration in N Europe, e.g. in Germany.
  • Any other languages?
  • International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) transliteration of at least "Alekhine".

--Philcha (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on your questions. Do you mean the spelling or the pronunciation? this edit it seems to me questions how other members of his family pronounce the family name. I have no source for that :( Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In practice the spelling and the pronunciation/intonation/phrasing are linked, as in "RP"/"BBC" English. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest as a start this article at Chess Cafe by Hans Kmoch, which states "'Alekhine' became the only correct spelling in the Latin alphabet when its bearer took French citizenship" and "Alekhine used to get angry if his name was pronounced Al-YOH-khin, the way Russians sometimes pronounced it. The correct Russian pronunciation, he said, was Al-YEH-khin, explaining that the name was derived from that of a tree (‘alyesha’) that grew abundantly near one of his family’s estates. ‘Al-YOH-khin’, he claimed, was a Yiddish distortion of his name, like Trotsky for Troitsky or Feigl for the German Vogel. But strangely, no-one whom I ever heard pronounce the name Al-YOH-khin was Jewish.""--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Aljechin (if I remember it right) would be good as well, but Kmoch's story what I really wanted! --Philcha (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Keller-Herrmann is dead

Edith Keller-Herrmann has died on May 12th, according to the website of the German magazine Schach. http://zeitschriftschach.de/aktuell/aktuell.htm --Constructor 20:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Since mid-2008 I've developed a set of tools and techniques that I've used in editing and reviewing articles - including stuff I've found hard to find from WP "official" sources. You might want to copy it from User:Philcha#Tools to somewhere in WP:Chess: userboxes don't live for ever; and your project should update your copy from the experiences from its members. I hope you find this helpful. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the toolbox is useful, perhaps you can help me with Capablanca, where I need citations to resolve 3 {{fact}} tags:

Capa did say that about Q+N vs. Q+B - I think I can find a reference. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 22:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed by Glenn Flear, pages 422-23 of Practical Endgame Play - beyond the basics. He says that the idea did come from Capa, but he couldn't find any Capa game supporting that idea. And he says that there is no difference statistically. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had seen it in Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca, but I couldn't find it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be debate between sources about whether Q+N is better/same as Q+B. If I cannot get one about "Botvinnik credits Capablanca as the first with this insight", I'll have to cut that phrase. Thanks for looking. --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Capablanca's A chess primer, page 202. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page history

Yesterday I moved the page Nonna Karakashyan to Nonna Karakashian, because it seemed to me that FIDE's spelling is preferable. A bit later the author of the article Yu783 undid my move by inserting text from Nonna Karakashian to Nonna Karakashyan, and then created a redirect. As he explained, the spelling "Karakashyan" is more recognizable. I did not mind, but the problem is the following: the page history is distorted and now I became... the author of Nonna Karakashyan article, which was actually started by Yu783. Could anyone please advise me what to do? --MrsHudson (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be complicated... But thanks anyway. --MrsHudson (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like more work than it warrants; if the history is slightly distorted, it doesn't seem such a big issue to me, particularly on a relatively minor personality in chess. Regarding name changes like this, I'd normally be very sceptical of editors moving away from the FIDE version, but it does seem justified in this case, as a Google search gives 341 versus 4 in favour of 'y' and the person herself uses 'y' on her personal website. One name that I think still needs changing is Genrikh Gasparyan - to Genrikh Kasparyan. On the article's discussion page, you'll see some explanation and unopposed support for the move. Please feel free to make this move, if you agree with it. I'm not that familiar with the "move" function, so I've not attempted it. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've gone ahead and made the request; an admin should be able to work it out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and just now moved the page Genrikh Gasparyan to Genrikh Kasparyan. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of him, his full/birth name in the info box is in Armenian. Wouldn't it be better in English? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should definitely be in English.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And when moving, remember to update index of chess articles. This needs to have the actual article title (not a redirect) so that "related changes" will show changes to the article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend User:Anomie/linkclassifier be used for ease of identification such articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram Uniformity

With fairy pieces, I find that several share letters. For example, the S is used for both the ship, and the inverted knight. Is there a possibility of making this uniform? I can make any required pieces, but most are available. I've started such a plan on my userspace here, but I'm not sure where to go, or to make it useful for diagram creators. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 12:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance but what are the ship and the inverted knight?  Dr. Loosmark  15:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A change you made may have messed up white dots in small diagrams. See your change to queen and pawn versus queen endgame. What you changed to x is supposed to be a small white dot. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my change, although it is somewhat related to this. I have uploaded the file needed, so should now be fixed.
Loosmark, I was in completely the same boat until a week or two ago! The inverted knight is sometimes used as a "unicorn" in some games, or a "nightmare", and is represented, as the name suggests, by a knight rotated 180 degrees. The ship is a piece used in Chaturaji. There are many more fairy pieces that have diagram representation, including the archbishop, champion and various others, as can be seen on this diagram. I'm wondering if we can just rearrange the clashes as I've suggested (or otherwise) and provide a complete set, with room for others at a later date, should we need them. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing it. It would probably be good to ask at the chess template. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we don't seem to have many fairy chess people here. Maybe one of the frequent contributors to fairy chess piece could help. Quale (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that there isn't anyone deeply concerned with this, so as long as I fix any errors these switches would cause, would anyone object? NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump about whether or not to do it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Nimzowitsch

The article says that quote "His works influenced numerous other players, including Savielly Tartakower, Milan Vidmar, Richard Réti, Akiba Rubinstein, Bent Larsen, and Tigran Petrosian, and his influence is still felt today." There is no doubt that Nimzowitsch's work influenced many top players however I am surprised to see Vidmar and Rubinstein mentioned there. Weren't those two classical style players more influenced for example by Steinitz and Tarrasch?  Dr. Loosmark  23:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That needs an inline citation. In fact the whole "Legacy" section needs more citations, and some the hyperbole could be toned down too (eg. he "shattered" assumptions that were "thought to be irrefutable laws of nature, like gravity."}--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and in general I have noticed that many biographies of chess players on wikipedia are, how shall we say, lets say that the quality isn't exactly stellar and they would need lots of work. Unfortunately seems we simply don't have the man power to improve them.  Dr. Loosmark  16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of new articles about obscure players but not so much work on existing articles about more important players. But each to his own.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many of the obscure players are nominated for DYK? --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kotov syndrome merged

Someone merged Kotov syndrome in to his article but left the project tag on the talk page and left it in index of chess articles. If this merge is to stand, those need to be fixed. How do editors feel about the separate article? (I think Kotov syndrome is also in the glossary of chess.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Obolentseva

Should Alexandra Obolentseva be kept or deleted? She was the 2009 Russian girls under 8 years old champion. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me as borderline, but I'd probably keep - mainly because of our general poicy of allowing national champions (and whilst she's very young, the age is a recognised category at the World Youth Ch.). Also, Russia is one of the keenest chess playing nations, so she probably is genuinely quite strong and improving fast. My other thought is that new chess prodigies can spark a lot of interest throughout the chess world and people often consult Wikipedia in this regard, so it would be a shame if we didn't carry at least some information. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting situation

Just for fun, here is an interesting situation. In this game Fifty-move rule#Lputian vs. Haroutjunian Black was two pawns down and defended well for 55 moves. During those 55 moves there were no captures or pawn moves. Then he made a bad move and resigned on the next move - when he could have claimed a draw by the fifty-move rule! He must have forgotten about it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination)

Any and all, please look in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pronounce Elo?

At Elo rating system talk page, a reader asks how to pronounce Elo. I don't know (other than Eee-low). What is it? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I say it. Btw Elo does not direct to Elo rating system. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chess books

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but I was redirected here from the mathematics reference desk. Would anyone be able to recommend some good chess books for self-study? I consider myself a competent player, but everything I've learnt was from playing and I figure a more formal education would both improve my game and be an enjoyable way to spend some of my free time over the summer.74.15.137.192 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you already read any book about chess?  Dr. Loosmark  17:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that information, I'd recommend the "Winning Chess" series by Yasser Seirawan, a seven-book series. Start with "Play Winning Chess" (you can probably skip or skim the first chapter). If that goes OK then both "Winning Chess Tactics" and "Winning Chess Strategies". To go beyond that "Winning Chess Openings" and "Winning Chess Endings". I haven't seen "Winning Chess Combinations", but maybe it could be the sixth one. "Winning Chess Briliancies" would be optional at the end. See Yasser Seirawan#Books. I think that is appropriate for a teenager on up. For a bit younger, probably A World Champion's Guide to Chess, by Susan Polgar. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is a lot of chess information on Wikipedia. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading classics like Nimzowitsch's "My System" or Reuben Fine's "Basic Chess Endings" can't hurt either.  Dr. Loosmark  23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one for My System. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Ststem is hard to read - I'd go with Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson instead. I love Basic Chess Endings but I would start with an easier one for endgames. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great suggestions guys! Regarding Seirawans's books; what level are they geared towards? My dad gave me a Chess for dummies book, and...not to sounds arrogant or anything, but it was pretty lame, and a bit insulting to my intelligence (I do NOT consider myself a dummy :) ). This was my first and only exposure to chess books, so I don't know that much about chess, but I would still like something challenging. 74.15.137.192 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Related question: is there a good (free) site to play chess on? 74.15.137.192 (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rook article

Trouble on rook (chess) again. I've reverted it twice. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, and left a friendly note on the users talk page. I don't know if the user is the same as the IP you reverted, but it seems pretty likely, in which case it was rather sporting of him to create an account instead of hiding behind an IP. Winston365 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible (maybe even likely) that a newcomer to the page wouldn't realize that this has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Someone new would also possibly not be aware that the language used currently is supported by reliable sources, and that whatever they might know to be true that contradicts the article needs to be referenced before it can be used. Winston365 did a good job trying to explain that, so we'll see what happens. Quale (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I suspect it is likely. The fact that he created a user account, did post on the talk page, and stopped reverting after 3RR was mentioned makes me think he was acting in good faith. WP:BITE applies here. I have to admit (although I wouldn't change the article) that the "non-players" wording the OCC uses does sniff a bit of the No true Scotsman fallacy however. Winston365 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is the phrase that seems to irk people (but it is directly from the Oxford Companion). I would be open to changing it a little. But at one time it said that castle was not used by players, and that was objected too also. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At one time it said that "castle is no longer used" but people said "I use it". How about replacing the "non-player" wording with "The term castle has been obsolete for decades." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that some people seem to take the "non-players" phrasing rather personally. I don't really understand this. Would they be happier if Hooper & Whyld had said "no literate chess player"? I think "non-players" in the context they used it is synonymous with "chess illiterates". If the "non-players" bit is to be replaced it should be with wording very close to that used by a reliable source. Part of the problem may be that many people aren't aware of the vast chess literature. We haven't seen this attack recently, but a few years ago there were somewhat persistent people claiming "chess is pokémon". A few people made even dumber claims, such as claiming that "Star Craft probably has as much written about it as chess" (apparently because it is played professionally in South Korea). Quale (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess&oldid=374988276"