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

PGN viewer

many of you guys are familiar with "pgn viewers" that exists outside wikipedia.

there is even a mediawiki extension that implements a pgn viewer. unfortunately, as code goes, the probability of this extension getting actually installed on any wikimedia wiki (such as the english wikipedia) is very low.

Why is that? I'm the author of such an extension, is there anything I can help with? I find it so odd that you think it's easier to write completely new (and untested) code rather than using something that already works. Even more, making this conclusion without even trying to contact the author of such extension. Casaschi (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

i developed a script that does part (most?) of what the familiar pgn viewer can do. i started a discussion about it in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Display_chess_games_from_PGN_data, but then reslized that maybe here would be a better place.

in a nutshell: look at the demo page on hewiki, and read the discussion in village pump.

peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Amazing quality of pieces and movement. I think maybe the buttons would be better below the board. Anyway, I approve. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

question and comment.

• Question: how do you mean below the board? between the PGN listing and the board, or below the pgn lising itself? if the former, wouldn't the extra distance between the board and the listing be a detractor?
• Comment: note that i am not a native in enwiki - my home wiki is hewiki. my hunch is that injecting this to enwiki will require some lobying, which i am not equiped to do - i do not even know what is the next step after posting here and in wp:vp#technical.

peace - קיפודנחש (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe Sun Creator means the buttons should go below the diagram. I agree. I've read the Village Pump dialogue, I agree there needs to be a "back button" as well. (This is useful to easily back up and analyze a move; the back button is also useful to repeatedly press sometimes, to back up even two or more moves, from the current position, it is the easiest and most intuitive method when playing over a game.)

This type of animation is clearly "the future" for WP. (What are we waiting for?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. BTW the movement is great but I think the WP chess icons suck. But that is easily changed.

FWIW, i created a proposal to use this. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Display Chess games (with animation) using PGN data. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So i modified the script according to the suggestions: moved the controls below the board, added a move-back-one-step button, and moved the PGN from the bottom to the left. please view it on he:User:קיפודנחש/ארגח 3. please note that this page contains huge number of games (around 100) so it may take several seconds to load. Typical chess article will likely contain much less than 100 games and hence will load quicker.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is a fascinating PGN-viewer, and its quality and complexity for a Javascript application inside Wikimedia is like a miracle for me.

I actually found this discussion here with a specific and rather useless idea in mind, that is: how could Wikipedia display an sample game for the longest possible chessgame, which due to the traditional Fifty-move rule should take 5899 moves. Now, a presentation with a Graphics Interchange Format (GIF), with one frame per half-move would take unnecessarily much storage space, and probably the number of possible frames for a GIF has a smaller upper limit (for example File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif has 475 frames). On the other hand, creating a PGN file of a longest sample game would be much easier than of a GIF, and could be done half-automatized, or with copy- and paste techniques. Of course it then would be great, if it was possible to show this long game on a PGN-viewer within Wikipedia, Greetings Rosenkohl (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I am reviving this proposal at the village pump:
WP:Village_pump_(technical)#Display_Chess_games_.28with_animation.29_using_PGN_data
Nothing came of it the last time and I think it's important. Mattj2 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

After discussing at the village pump, we're going to start working on adapting the PGN viewer as a gadget. Details here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#New_subproject_for_PGN_Chess_Viewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattj2 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking at options for adding a javascript chessboard to wikipedia, you might want to evaluate my extension as well http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EmbedChessboard There's a demo site here http://pgn4web-test.casaschi.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page Keep in mind, many features can be customized or adapted to your needs: colors are controlled from the extension settings. Minor code changes would allow for a different set of chess pieces (like the ones used today for wikipedia diagrams) and for the preferred chessboard size. By default, the chess moves are written using figurine notations but with small code change this could be disabled. Also note in the third example of the demo page the use of the Chess Informant style annotations (this also could be disabled if required). Feel free to post here any request of information or feedback on my extension. Casaschi (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

About the proposed extension in this page, few comments: the example shows a dropdown menu with 13 games while the supplied PGN text contain 14 games; the game Keres/Reshevsky is somehow lost; being the only one with comments and variations in the PGN text, it looks like the proposed viewer does not support move comments and variations: I would not add a viewer to wikipedia that does not support move comments and variations, it's too much important to attract high quality content. Second comment, you use the English notation for the chess pieces, like 1. Nf3; the chess world has standardized around an international language-independent figurine notation for the chess moves where the N in 1. Nf3 is replaced by the picture of a small Knight; I strongly recommend to follow the standard practice of chess publications. Same for comment symbols, the chess world has standardized around the set of annotation symbols from chess informant, you should not define your own set (like the strange text symbols you find in the PGN notes to the missing Keres/Reshevsky game) and you should use the standard symbols as much as possible. It would also be very user friendly to be able to move back/forward in the game using the left/right arrow keys. Casaschi (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fischer's memory

I've read that Fischer had an amazing memory; that he remembered everything he read. I haven't been able to find a reference to that. I checked Endgame and Profile of a Prodigy, but there isn't anything in the index about it. Does anyone know of a reference about Fischer's memory? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

maybe this one? --Antimaterie (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

„Fischer's brain certainly works in unusual ways. Thorarinsson recounts a story of Bobby phoning Icelandic grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson to ask for some technical advice ahead of the match in 1972. The phone was answered by the Olafsson's 10-year-old daughter who spouted several sentences of Icelandic that baffled Fischer. The next day Fischer, who of course spoke no Icelandic, repeated those sentences exactly to Thorarinsson, every phrase, every inflection accurate, so that Thorarinsson could understand precisely what the young girl had said. Thorarinsson called it a "phonetic memory"; we might prefer a photographic memory.” Guardian article.

Chess diagram using FEN

So i created a new template, {{Chess diagram-fen}}, which is pretty similar in capabilities to {{Chess diagram}}, except that you feed it the FEN string to draw the board. so instead of

{{Chess diagram
| tright
| 
|= 
 8 |rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd|=
 7 |pd|pd|pd|pd|  |pd|pd|pd|=
 6 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 5 |  |  |  |  |pd|  |  |  |=
 4 |  |  |  |  |pl|pl|  |  |=
 3 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 2 |pl|pl|pl|pl|  |  |pl|pl|=
 1 |rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
    a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h
| The King's Gambit
}}

you write

{{Chess diagram-fen
| fen=rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4PP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR
| align=tright
| footer=The King's Gamit
}}

i will be happy to hear what you guys think. also, let me know if there's any missing feature, or if you have problems seeing the template with any specific browser, esp. older version of IE, and any mobile browser.

currently, the {{Chess diagram-fen}} template only deals with 8x8 boards, and does not support any of the "special" features, such as drawing X's and O's, digits, or fairy pieces. it *does* have one feature the regular template doesn't — it can display the board from the black's point of view, i.e. with h8 at the lower left corner.

the main thing, in my mind, is switching from the tedious and non-standard format of Template:Chess diagram to a standard and ubiquitous FEN notation. however, there is one additional advantage: wikipedia saves it more than twice as fast as it saves the existing template: e.g., User:קיפודנחש/sandbox contains 36 instances of Template:Chess diagram, and takes about 45 seconds to save, and in contrast User:קיפודנחש/sandbox2 contains 80 instances of Template:Chess diagram-fen, and takes less than 40 seconds to save. i do not believe it's even possible to have 80 instances of Template:Chess diagram on one page on enwiki — it would blow up with error/timeout when you try to save it.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It's very nice! Congratulations!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Like #PGN viewer again fascinating, Rosenkohl (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm impressed, I think this could be a good replacement for the current chess diagram template for most uses. Quale (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that took a lot of work! I see that Template:Chess diagram transcludes each row, which in turn transcludes each square, which takes a lot of processing power and generates a huge amount of HTML. A different board game (Arimaa) has a template that is MUCH simpler. Could it be adapted into an efficient chess template?

Template: Template:Arimaa_diagram

One page that uses it: Arimaa Mattj2 (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There is more discussion of it here and here. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a program to convert the diagrams in an article from the old format to the FEN format. I just did it to Rook and pawn versus rook endgame. My informal tests show the FEN version to be quite a bit faster when bringing up an article with a large number of diagrams to edit and to save it. This article has nearly 50 diagrams. To bring it up to edit with the old diagrams took about 23 seconds. With the FEN diagrams it takes about 7 seconds. To save it with the old diagrams took about 50 seconds but about 10-12 with the FEN diagrams. So it makes editing articles with a large number of diagrams nicer.

There are a couple of drawbacks to the FEN diagrams, though.

1. You can look at the old style editing and see the diagram. I can't visualize FEN.
2. If you want to make a change to a diagram (e.g. put the king in a different place), it is hard to do with FEN. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it possible to write a subprogram/routine which reads as input the visually easier 'Chess diagram' position info, and internally generates the equivalent FEN, to feed itself the FEN code? (It would seem to represent the best of both worlds then.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago I wrote a program to generate the "chess diagram" format. You can enter the board position visually and enter the header and footer and select parameters small and left/right. It will also accept FEN input of the position instead of doing the position visually. Yesterday I modified it so that it will convert an article (or part of it) from the old "chess diagram" format to the new "chess diagram-fen" format.

So it has two modes (1) generate an old-style diagram (visual or FEN input) and (2) convert old style to new FEN style. But it wouldn't take much work to have it input FEN and generate the FEN format diagram, if that is what you are asking. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

But simply inputting the FEN and outputting the FEN diagram doesn't save the user much effort, if any. But what you may be getting at is reading in an FEN, showing it visually, making a change (visually), and then generating the new FEN diagram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I think Ihardlythinkso has something else in mind. Divorce the input method from the template output. The FEN diagram doesn't load faster than the old diagram because FEN is easier to parse than the grid parameter setup (the input), it's faster because it generates more compact HTML (the output). The old chess diagram basically works by generating an 8x8 table and filling each cell with an image. Examination of the output from the FEN diagram suggests that it uses a single background image for the board and then uses relative positioning to overlay an image only for filled squares (pieces, X and O marks, etc.). It seems that it should be possible to write a template that accepts input similar to the current diagram but generates HTML in the style of the FEN diagram. If this were done I might suggest some changes to the input codes. The "lx" and "dx" business used by the current diagram template is odd. More in keeping with traditional notation would be to use upper and lower case for white and black, as FEN itself does. It's possible that two letter codes were chosen because some popular file systems have trouble with files whose names differ only in case. Quale (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh yea, I see. That sounds good. I don't know anything about writing a template. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The FEN diagram template is written in Lua, which is not one of the several languages I know. I also know next to nothing about Wikipedia templates, and on occasion I struggle just trying to use them. Quale (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability (International Masters and chess in England)

I recently stumbled across Lawrence Trent, a one-line stub on an English IM. It was prodded for deletion and then sourced (sort of) and the prod removed. I don't think many IMs rise to the level of notability needed for Wikipedia articles, but am not going to nominate it for deletion myself as there are many articles about chess in England (and the rest of the UK) that (IMO) shouldn't have articles but do (and conversely others that don't have articles that should). I'm not sure I can be fully objective about this, though, as I know some of the people in question (the same applies to List of officers of the Oxford University Chess Club - it was quite bizarre seeing some names there that I recognise). Would it be OK if I made a list here of various articles that might not meet notability guidelines, or would it be best to read up on any specific guideline here first? I should note that I have created a few chess-related articles art various points: B. H. Wood, CHESS magazine, Phillips & Drew Kings, Karen Grigorian, American Chess Bulletin, and List of FIDE chess world number ones. Where would those lie on the spectrum of notability? Carcharoth (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; I'm all for it. Are you going to publish the list on this talk page? OGBranniff (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A good start would be casting a critical eye over Category:British chess biography stubs, especially the living people there. When I was thinking of people who might (going by instinct, maybe not the best guide) have or should have Wikipedia articles who are not GMs, I thought of Michael Basman (article looks OK), Malcolm Pein (no article), Stewart Reuben, Leonard Barden, William Hartston, and so on. One I came across that was unexpected was Peter Lalić (son of GM Bogdan Lalić and IM and WGM Susan Lalic). But there are undoubtedly other articles with issues with notability as well. I suspect the same could be said for chess coverage in other countries as well, but chess in England is what I'm most familiar with. Some other articles I noticed included Julian Simpole, Tim Woolgar. There were some others, but as I said I know some of the people and I'm reluctant to name the articles as I'm not sure I can be objective (I'd either be too lenient in assessing the article subject for notability, or too harsh). Carcharoth (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I was inspired by your first post so I proceeded to nominate the Lawrence Trent article for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawrence_Trent. Thanks for pointing that out. I also nominated the laughably blatant advertising of Julian Simpole. You know, if you identify and list any articles you feel do not meet notability, verfiability, or any other Wikipedia criteria, I will be more than willing to craft a policy rationale as to why they fail standards and send each and every one of them off to AFD. We could work together like the (redacted) in Germany... you investigate and identify the deficient articles, and I'll round them up and ship them off. It'll be efficient. OGBranniff (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

i understand that this was meant as humor, but i'd like to point out that i found it offensive. Peace- קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank Arbcom member User:Carcharoth for inspiring me with his initial post in this regard. I was wondering if he, or anyone else who would like to assist in this project to suggest other "categories" of chess articles that may have large numbers of notability issues. Is there a master list of categories we can peruse anywhere? It is interesting how "categorization" can lead to things being quickly identified and quickly marked for "special attention," as in cases like this. Thank you for the heads-up and inspiration. We shall make Wikipedia a better place, working together. OGBranniff (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a lack of information will make Wikipedia better. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The removal of spurious, trivial "factoids" that fail to meet general Wikipedia standards of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG is not the same as "lack of information." Like several other senior editors have said before, the chess articles here do not receive a "special pass" on flouting Wikipedia policy. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Responding here to OGBranniff's comment above where he referred to me as 'Arbcom member'. That's technically correct, but that has no bearing here at all. I'm commenting here just as another editor. I do think some of the notability issues surrounding some of the chess articles on Wikipedia need to be clarified. I have a list of possible articles to create, some of which may be on the borderline of notability. It would help to have more of a sense of where the lines lies. I don't think OGBranniff's rather brusque approach is helping. Carcharoth (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

should this be merged?

Life Master (chess), Chess master, and Chess expert have been merged into Chess titles. Chess master is a title, but there is also a general notion of what a chess master is, predating the official titles. I do not think that it should be merged like this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I like separate articles on the titles myself. I say we just keep the items separate until there is a rational consensus to merge, eh? OGBranniff (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also checked the article for National_master and it redirects to Chess titles. What's up with that; shouldn't National Master have a standalone article as well? There are National masters from many nations, not just the USA. OGBranniff (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Those articles were merged by another editor a short time ago. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Candidate master redirects to FIDE titles, which is not exactly the same as chess titles. I think there is a confusing mess that needs to be cleaned up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think then we should bust it up, re-separate the articles. I am thinking about writing the "National Master" article. OGBranniff (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Chess Master should definitely have its on article because it is a general term, and "chess master" is not a formal title. The others are debatable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I restored chess master to the way it was, but I left chess titles alone (for now). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD of historic masters

There has been a batch of AFD's all with the same rational that fail is grasp the historical context of older chess masters. The grandmaster title started in 1950 so those of a previous era won't any such official title. If a worlds top 100 player from pre-1900 are not notable it's going to put consider impact on deleting grandmaster of the current era, some of which would NOT make the worlds top 1000 players. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OGBranniff AfD criteria

User:OGBranniff, curious to know your opinion regarding the notability of this person: George H. D. Gossip. (Notable? Why or why not?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:OGBranniff, did you forget to answer? All I've asked here is for your opinion re notability, the same as the evaluations you gave in the 18 AfDs you recently submitted. (That seemed like breeze-work for you, so, I don't think this one additional article should represent any extra special effort on your part.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does anyone else think that this is not an appropriate level of discourse for the front page of a public discussion board that is visited by women and children? Sasata (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, it's beyond inappropriate. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I also find it unacceptable. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

But, why do you not find it appropriate or acceptable? Nobody has advanced any rationale behind their opinion. I don't see anything wrong with it myself. It's true, to the point, and describes my lifestyle and interests. What's the problem? OGBranniff (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Read what Sasata wrote. And get a clue. Here's a quote from you: "Are you that dense? You probably are. That's not my problem." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is there any evidence that "women and children" visit that page, or more specifically, closely read it? Even if they do, "Wikipedia is NOT censored." Jimmy Wales himself would back me up on this issue and you know it. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then tell us why you redacted here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about OGBranniff's behavior at WP:ANI#Behavioral problems with User:OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talking about Nazis and the SS is a bit different than talking about sluts. OGBranniff (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How are they different in relation to the NOT censored argument you brought up? And, you failed to answer my Q: Why did you redact? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Because I chose to self-censor myself in the first comment and am choosing not to in the second. You really are dense, aren't you? OGBranniff (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm dense, yes. But not at the moment. You still didn't answer my Q: Why did you [choose to] redact? (You only stated that you "chose to" redact. Of course you chose to, else you wouldn't have. I'm asking you why you chose to. Please answer this time, without insulting further.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The answer is in my response of 00:49 above. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're saying at 00:49 that the comments were "different". (No contest there -- they are different.) But that does not answer what it was about the first comment that caused you to decide to redact. (Saying it's "different" from a comment you did not redact, does not explain your reason for redacting. Please explain that reason, and quit dodging my Q.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Figure it out yourself, kid. If you want everything spelled out to you in small bite size kindergarten-level chunks I'm not going to play along. Why don't you tone it down a bit, will you, while we are at it? "quit dodging my Q," as if your queries were a life and death situation or you're the chairman of some Senate investigation. Grow up. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You already said I was "dense", so, go ahead, spell it out for me. (Why did you choose to redact the Nazi comment?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "tone it down a bit, will you?", do you mean, like in your edit summary here !? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP consensus is built on discussion and argumentation. (Whoever has the better argument, not votes, wins the day.) That said, an argument proffered why keeping the "sluts" self-description should be kept: "I don't see anything wrong with it myself. It's true, to the point, and describes my lifestyle and interests." That's very interesting argument ... as if whether it was true or not, had any bearing on whether it should be posted here. (Besides the point, that nothing is confirmable regarding what people tell about themselves on WP, so what's the point in attempting to assure? Plus the point that no one cares, or has reason to care.) And "to the point" means what, exactly? (Concisely written?! Oh boy. What an argument for keeping -- that the expression is efficient with words!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• OGBranniff has been blocked indefinitely. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment on Administrator close: this is not WP:ANI, closing down a discussion with a purple box and making ANI-like conclusions including innuendo about policy violation and blocking is how ANI operates, and a Project discussion page should not be converted into a pseudo-ANI just because an Administrator feels like it. (If the Administrator wanted to warn any user about anything, the place for him to do that would be the User's Talk page, and not by treating this Project discussion page as though it were WP:ANI.) A really bad precedent and inappropriate flexing of Admin power by extending ANI stuff to a Project page, IMO! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Permanent Commission of the FIDE for Chess Compositions

Should Permanent Commission of the FIDE for Chess Compositions be moved to the name of the new organization, the World Federation for Chess Composition? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have personally participated as Deputy Delegate at the Crete 2010 meeting that adopted name change.

In my view World Federation for Chess Composition should now be the main page as this is full successor of PCCC (whereas Permanent Commission of the FIDE for Chess Compositions should be redirect page). Also, the text on the page could be edited to reflect the current status and a bit of history (which can be extracted from e.g. retrospective view of Klaus Wenda Ruziklan (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If I move the article, will you update the text appropriately? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can try, but I can't promise quick work (maybe during weekend or next) and somebody will have to improve my English, I still do a lot of mistakes. Ruziklan (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it and made some basic edits to the article to reflect the WFCC name. I also updated index of chess articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that a chess "compositionist" is known as a Komponist in German? Or is it Schachspielkomponist or what? Anyone know the official terms? OGBranniff (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

While my knowledge of German language is just basic, it is possible to extract from Die Schwalbe pages that Komponist is often used term for chess composers, sometimes extended to Schachkomponist or with other prefixes further specifying the preferred genre: Studienkomponist for composer of endgame studies, Selbstmattkomponist for composer of selfmates etc.Ruziklan (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Kerry Shirts

Kerry Shirts was deleted years ago. It was recreated. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point may apply. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The original Kerry Shirts article was written and deleted at a time before Shirts got into Chess and became known for his videos. Furthermore, this new article has sources. There is no "disruption" here. OGBranniff (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, at a minimum the claim "Nevertheless, these videos serve as entertainment, education, and inspiration to thousands, if not millions, of chess players in the United States." seems dubious, and I don't see a source for that. Also including Idaho and United States in a See also section is pointless. (Most articles today don't link United States at all because of WP:OVERLINK.) The chess link is repeated in the body of the very short article and in See also, another no no. (WP:ALSO) Quale (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OGB, the Kerry Shirts article is the type of thing that you would nominate for deletion, except that it has less merit than the ones you did nominate. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be deleted, no doubt. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I PRODed it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bubba, obviously. (And if I had been the user to PROD it, instead of Bubba, I'd probably be looking at a block right now by an Administrator who wants to show me who's boss.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

An ironic choice of article for someone who is so sanctimonious and precious about the upholding of Wikipedia's standards. Those sources don't even demonstrate Shirts is well known beyond his own doorstep; in my opinion, about as trivial and superficial a subject as you could ever find. And whilst I could understand the lack of support for the Lawrence Trent article, it nevertheless made me laugh that I was reading about 'Shirts' while Trent was presenting the official organiser's live feed of the WC Candidates Tournament to a worldwide audience. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That is why I wonder if Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is in play. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think partially that applies. But I think Wikipedia:Gaming the system more aptly pinpoints what we've been witnessing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad that Lawrence Trent couldn't be saved right now. I wanted to help but couldn't find any sources. I think it should be possible to write a better article in the future if we can find a few solid sources. On a closely related note, the recently created Malcolm Pein could use some help. I wikified it, but I don't know much about chess journalists on (what is for me) the other side of the pond. Along those lines, I wonder if we should have Category:Chess journalists? It would have significant overlap with Category:Chess writers, so maybe it isn't needed, but now and in the future TV and Internet video are going to become more prominent and writers doesn't cover that. Quale (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a few decent pieces on Lawrence, and there would be several published games in magazines etc, but I didn't think the article merited a time-consuming fight, as it was very uninformative anyway and there were some editors that I sensed (rightly or wrongly) were not really open to a 'benefit of the doubt' debate. It is a problem generally I think, that some chess personalities are very much 'of the moment'; they don't have a long track record and so no-one has yet written about them in any great detail. Also, these 'new age' celebrities are very open and visible - we can see them, hear them and read non-stop twitter feeds by them and about them. Consequently, they are not such good material for third party reporters, who would be competing with a readership's direct access and a lack of exclusivity. I do agree that there may be scope for a journalistic category; certainly deserved of an article is Macauley Peterson on your side of the pond - he is the producer that puts together most of these elite tournament broadcasts, but is also a writer and journalist of note. I will have a look at the Malcolm Pein article. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right about the difficulty in finding second or third party WP:RS reliable sources on some modern media people. Wikipedians have struggled with that for a while in articles on Internet personalities, but I have to admit I wasn't too sympathetic to their difficulties before. Now that I see it affecting chess articles I'm more sensitive to the issue. Quale (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a rather myopic view to take. I see it affecting chess articles and I still am not sympathetic to the lack of RS on these "internet media" types. Why do you continually assert that chess articles on Wikipedia somehow get a "pass" on sourcing and notability standards that every other article has to meet? Perhaps you should start your own "WikiChess" or something where you can have more relaxed, if any, standards for articles. OGBranniff (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over 7 years, and in all that time I've never claimed any special standards for chess articles. Go away. Quale (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You saying things like "Go away," in addition to calling me worthless and a net negative, etc, are highly offensive and in violation of many Wikipedia policies. Quale, I would kindly ask that you apologize for your statements in a separate section here on Wikiproject Chess, or I am prepared to submit a "Request for Comment" on your behavior of 1) slinging insults at me whenever possible, and 2) badgering various admins after the close of our ANI. Based upon the commentary I've seen directed at you by various administrators recently, I am sure any RFC concerning your ill behavior will not be in your favor. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. You will not get an apology from me. Quale (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

All right then, see you at RFC. But seeing as how you've alienated, antagonized, and irritated every administrator you've come across in your little "crusade" about me lately, such as here [1], I am sure this won't end up good for you. I'm going to make one last request for an apology. OGBranniff (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Irina Krush

The article on Irina Krush, probably the United States' most foremost female player, is in sore need of expansion. Of paramount importance is getting some more photographs and images of Miss Krush in the article -- more recent photos and just better photos. How would we go about doing this? Anyone got any ideas? And how does Wikipedia commons relate to en.wikipedia.org for images? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You can use anything on Commons [2]. You can explore what's on Flikr [3]. Be sure to check licensing [4]. Also this general WP guide WP:Finding images tutorial. You can try Emailing her, her agent or publicist. You can take a photo yourself too. It's all hard work. Good luck! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right about the licensing. For a while I had a pretty good success uploading chess photos and claiming "fair use", but in the last couple of years they have gotten very strict and almost all of the ones I uploaded were deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I checked Wikimedia commons and didn't see anything good. Maybe I can upload some. Thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That will be good, but you can't just take one off the internet and upload it to Wikipedia - that will be a copyright violation unless it is released under a free license, e.g. GNU General Public License. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What if I get a photograph from a yard sale, then scan it into a .jpg? OGBranniff (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You probably can't upload it because someone owns the copyright on it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Chess Championship

The Azerbaijani Chess Championship is missing winners from all years from 1934 through 1994. (According to our article, the contest wasn't held every year until 1945, but we're still missing a lot.) Can anyone help with the missing data? Quale (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

New subproject for PGN Chess Viewer

After discussion at WP:Village_pump_(technical)#Display_Chess_games_.28with_animation.29_using_PGN_data, we reached consensus to work on adapting User:קיפודנחש's animated PGN viewer into a WP:Gadget. If the gadget is enabled the user will be able to step through the chess game move by move. If the gadget is disabled something simple will be shown instead, likely a static image or animated GIF of the board. In any case, it is important that the full list of moves be spelled out explicitly in the article text.

We will need plenty of space to discuss the work that needs to be done so I'm creating a subproject called "PGN Chess Viewer." I hope that's ok. (Please tell me if it's not.) I hope you'll join us. Mattj2 (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Kingston Defence

Does anyone want to have a go at cleaning up the Kingston Defence article? It was written a few years ago by the author of a book on the opening, and it has some WP:TONE problems as it reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. I had forgotten about this one, and I'm embarrassed to see that I wrote "coverage is pretty good" in a 2005 edit summary since the state of the article then was much as it is today. Quale (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone even heard of it? None of my opening books have even a passing reference to it. I mean, it's just an awful version of the Staunton Gambit by transposition, which is what my edition of Houdini seems to recognize it as. Houdini recommends taking all the pawns that are offered with a solid plus, whereas Rybka thinks take the first and play Nf3, again with a solid plus. Who would want to start the game a pawn or two down, with no demonstrable compensation? I do wonder if this is just a one man (or maybe two man) fanciful crusade. I played chess throughout the 70s and 80s when some resurgence in the 'Kingston' is claimed to have happened, but never came across it. There appears to be no helpful reference in the article - and if the opening does date back to the 1880s, then was it recognized as something independent back then? We're not told. That era was of course an age of discovery; little was understood and a lot of experimentation occurred - not everything caught on - especially if it was unplayable. I'm really not sure that one 'out of print' pamphlet by an unknown author constitutes notability without some other references. From a glance, it seemed to me that the first reference given was just a mirror of the wiki article. Wiki article and blog post aside, I'm not convinced this opening would exist anywhere by this name. Note also that the name refers to the town in which the blog writer (and pamphlet author?) lives. All sounds very 'home baked' if you ask me. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. The article says that it is ECO C01, but it would actually be C00, but it isn't in my first edition ECO, even as a note. It also is not in the extensive opening list at the end of the Oxford Companion. I think the article should probably be deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Bubba, it falls under C00 in ECO Vol C 2nd Edition, but under C01 in the 3rd Edition. (C00 in Vol C 3rd Edition covers 1.e4 e6 moves other than 2.d4; C01 in that Edition covers 1.e4 e6 2.d4 then moves other than 2...d5, 2...d5 then moves other than 3.exd5 3.e5 3.Nd2 3.Nc3, and finally 2...d5 3.exd5.) So Informant changed the org between 2nd & 3rd Editions. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I only have first edition ECO. Is 2...f5 listed in the third edition of ECO? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And FIDE doesn't list the author, Gavin Wilson. Of course, they don't list deceased players. And ChessGames.com has no games by him. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You've convinced me that the article shouldn't be fixed, it should be deleted instead. ECO provides a complete categorization of all possible openings, but generally absent very special circumstances, if a line isn't in MCO, NCO, or BCO, it shouldn't have an article. I think it could be sent to AFD for lacking notability, as we have only a single source of uncertain reliability. Since no one currently active here seems to have access to the source, we can't even check that the claims are supported by the source. No chess writer of any stature seems to have paid any attention to this opening line at all. Quale (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked the other books. Has anyone done that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The source book is listed at Amazon, but it isn't available. Googling the publisher doesn't turn it up, so it is probably self-published. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Bookfinder.com doesn't even show it - or anything on the Kingston Defense. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find mention of the move sequence in MCO-15, NCO or BCO-2, although someone should double check. Brittle heaven is right that the Dutch is the place to look, but all three sources are unanimous in giving only the natural 2...fxe4 in reply to the Staunton Gambit. The move that would transpose into the "Kingston" or "Frutch" (2...e6) is not listed. The other place to look is the French, but I can't find 2...f5 discussed in those books either. Quale (talk)

I think a simple PROD would take care if it. I doubt anyone wants to keep it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Crucially, no references to a Franco-Dutch in the Oxford Companion (as Bubba73 has pointed out) or any of the encyclopedias (despite the presence of both Franco-Indian and Franco-Benoni openings eg. in Brace, I think). Of the opening manuals, I can confirm it is also not in the Russian Handbook Of Chess Openings by Gufeld/Kalinichenko, nor the old Keene/Kasparov edition of BCO. It is also absent from the Rare Continuations Chapter of Psakhis' book The Complete French. Not checked my books on the Dutch, but I'm certain it won't appear, as no-one would conceivably want to go out of their way to get an inferior version of the Staunton Gambit. Houdini did regard it as a line of the Staunton Gambit (A82 classification if you wanted to check for a Dutch SG transposition in ECO) but appeared to have no lines programmed into its book memory, in either the Exchange or Advance continuations. I'd agree with the PROD. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I prod'ed it. The article creator and primary editor has been blocked since last summer for copyright violations, but I don't think those are related to this article. Quale (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The article attributes a line to Clyde Nakamura. He has a FIDE rating of 2089. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find it in either Unorthodox Openings (Benjamin, Schiller; 1987), or Unorthodox Chess Openings (Schiller; 1998). Agree w/ Brittle it looks "home-baked". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The PROD was removed - it is now on AfD. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Page move for Chess around the world

Comments are welcome here. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Chessgloss}}

I converted the three glossary chess term wlinks found in section Pawn (chess)#Strategy to access the glossary a different way, via a {{Chessgloss}} template (that I tentatively created for trial & inspection).

I'd noticed in the lead to article Eight-ball, how template {{Cuegloss}} is being used to access Glossary of cue sports terms, so was curious to try it out. (I think there are plusses and minuses; what do others think?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

DTZ in Endgame tablebase

Endgame tablebase briefly mentions DTZ (Depth To Zero). It says that it takes the fifty-move rule into account. But the April Chess Life, page 44, gives a position with two rooks and a knight versus a rook and a bishop that it sets a record DTZ of a win in 260 moves. But there are no pawns and at most four pieces can be captured, so how can it go 260 moves under the fifty-move rule? Can someone explain DTZ? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Chess articles renamed/moved

Looking at changes to the chess articles via the index, it looks like six chess articles were renamed today. It is hard to tell what all of them were. One was Tövshintögsiin Batchimeg, in which the first and last names were swapped, because of the way her name is (family name first).

It is important for the index of chess articles to list the exact article title so that changes to the articles will be listed under "related changes" to the index. Does anyone know how to find out all of the moved/renamed articles so the index can be updated? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a real nuisance. I don't have time to check right now, but scrolling down the usual "Changes to Index of chess articles" page, it appears at first glance that one user (with only intermediate English language capability according to his user page) has changed several article names to match his own preferences. I think we'll need to check them over and revert if they are less common versions to those found in English texts. One can normally make a good assessment after running a Google search and comparing the official FIDE site name (or a reference in an encyclopedia. Aside from these latest ones, I've always wondered if we erroneously changed Pentala Harikrishna to Pendyala. I recall there was some note posted that Pentala was an insulting term or whatever, and so we needed to change it, but ever since we did, I have never seen any other book, magazine or website follow suit, which makes me very suspicious. Previously we have run a short survey and vote on the relevant Talk page to correct/question unilateral, no consultation changes (See what I did at Talk:Genrikh Kasparyan for an example) if anyone wants to start the ball rolling. Alternatively, we could ask the user concerned to put his case on the talk page and invite others to vote. Of course some of the changes may be correct - I am not prejudging. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They show up in the move log, which I see in the related changes to Index of chess articles. I'm putting them below so that we can discuss them. Normally I'd say they should be discussed on each individual talk page, but with this many moves at the same time I think centralized discussion will be more practical. Quale (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but when there are multiple moves, the move log only shows the time of the last one. The only thing I know to do is to look at the editors that had moves and look at their contributions for that time; change that one, then look at the move log again, etc. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right, of course. On the P. Harikrishna question, I see FIDE now lists him just as "P. Harikrishna". We could always go with that, if we don't have a better option. Quale (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Batchimeg Tuvshintugs to Tövshintögsiin Batchimeg

• This move was wrong so I moved it back. In English language sources always appears as Batchimeg Tuvshintugs. Quale (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed it in the index. Did you change it back? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No. I don't see the change you mention. (I was going to wait until we decided where we might want these before updating Index of chess articles.) Quale (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It must have not gotten saved. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexei Barsov to Aleksey Barsov

• FIDE and chessgames.com transliterate as "Alexei", so I moved it back. Quale (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian Chess Championship to List of Peruvian Chess Championship Winners

• There's no requirement that list articles have list in the title and it's completely pointless here. I undid some similar violence done many months ago to Canadian Chess Championship and another and I'm going to move this back so that it fits the pattern in Category:Chess national championships. Notice that the mover didn't even bother to fix DEFAULTSORT so that the article was sorting under "List". Quale (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Evgeny Vladimirov to Yevgeniy Vladimirov

• chessgames.com has Evgeny, but FIDE says Yevgeniy. I think the move is good and we should leave it. Quale (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Moussa Taleb to Taleb Moussa

• These name order bits are complicated. If the player is really well known and his or her name appears widely in English language sources it isn't too bad, but for others I'm not sure what to do. The question isn't really how the name is usually presented in the native country, but rather how English sources write it. In this case gulfnews.com search shows quite a few hits for "Taleb Moussa" (some could probably be used to improve the article), so my guess is that the move is OK. Quale (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mohamad Naser Al Sayed to Mohammed Al-Sayed

• FIDE uses the target name (actually "AL-Sayed" according to FIDE, no idea why capital L there but FIDE has had it that way for a long time), so I think the move is OK. Quale (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work. Fully agree with what you've done here. No idea why FIDE go with Yevgeniy; the Google hits are 2:1 in favour of Evgeny, but for consistency's sake, it's better we don't just use FIDE when it suits us. Curiously, The Indian Times use P Harikrishna as well as FIDE, so there does appear to be some issue with his first name. I guess we could leave it for now and be prepared to switch to the FIDE version if there is any further conflict. Odd though how tournament organizers continue to use Pentala, like at Tata Steel 2013; surely he would make out his application using the name he wishes to be known by. Perhaps he fills it out as P Harikrishna and they just think he has abbreviated for ease rather than any other reason. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Peruvian Championship, or any other for that matter, it should be obvious that the article can be about the championship itself; its beginnings, past history, format, auspices etc. There is no benefit in confining it to a list of champions only. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

FIDE

An editor keeps changing FIDE from "World Chess Federation" (which is what their website says) to "International Chess Federation", probably based on the French version of their name. Quale reverted it once a few days ago and I made a comment on the editor's talk page. The editor has done it again. It is "world", right? The editor jhas made similar edits to other articles within the last several days. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I just found his comments on the talk page of the redirect: Talk:World Chess Federation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The anon is a troll. We could ask that his IP be blocked, or we could ask to have the affected pages semi-protected. Otherwise we can just revert him and hope that he gets bored. We outnumber him, so he may tire of it eventually. The whole "World Chess Federation is incorporated/trademarked/copyrighted/whatever by some guy in Las Vegas and is the rightful owner of the championship still held by Fischer" is something that's been around for a while. We suffered a similar attack some years ago. Quale (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it a static IP? Where's it coming from? Muskie72 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been the same for a while, 72.193.213.78 (talk · contribs). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait! Back up! The second line of this topic says "French version of their name." But isn't their name in FRENCH? The "French version" of the name IS the name. Like if my name was Pierre the "French version" of my name would be Pierre. If FIDE was in English it would be the IFC. What are you talking about? Muskie72 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

French was the official language of FIDE from when it started and for many years. But now English is the offical language of FIDE, and they say that their name is "World Chess Federation", but they still go by "FIDE". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "World Chess Federation" is a separate entity based in Nevada. FIDE just can't take the name another group already has. Muskie72 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey! The anonymous FIDE troll created an account. Quale (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Grow up. I've been here for a while. What I am saying is accurate. Think about this: What if FIFA just decided to start calling itself the "National Football League"? The same thing is happening with FIDE. Muskie72 (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If by "a while" you mean since April 4, then sure. Your first edit was to an AFD, and your interest in Stalinism aligns closely with a recently blocked user's obsession with Nazism. I smell another OGB sock. Quale (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, in the good old tradition of [5]. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

New article idea

I hope I am posting this in the right place. I have an idea for a new Wikipedia article. The topic will be the "Great Terror" in the Stalinist USSR and its effect on the chess program in the Soviet Union. I have been studying the Stalinist system in school lately. I was wondering if this was an appropriate chess topic and if anyone had any ideas about sources for the article. I have the "Soviet School of Chess," but that won't help in this case, since that book is basically state propaganda. Any help is greatly appreciated. Muskie72 (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article we have now is Soviet Chess School. It's very brief, and I think it would be great to expand it along the lines you suggest if you can find good sources. I don't have much to offer. Andrew Soltis wrote Soviet Chess 1917–1991 (1999), which would probably be a good source but I don't have the book. Robert Wade also wrote a book Soviet Chess (1968) which I also don't have, but I'm not sure it has much to help with your interest. I have seen Soviet Chess (1965) by D. J. Richards at a local college library. It's rather academic in tone, but does have some interesting material on chess in the early years of the USSR. A book that I do have is Russians versus Fischer (2005). It has some interesting information on how the Soviets viewed Fischer and the 1972 championship, although as you can expect from the title there isn't much about chess in the Stalin era. GM Genna Sosonko has written several books that contain some stories about Soviet chess, but unfortunately I haven't read any of them yet. Maybe someone else can be of more help. There are several chess editors here with larger chess libraries than mine. Quale (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest White king and red queen : how the Cold War was fought on the chessboard by Daniel Johnson. It's a very nice book of history of chess that deals with the developing of soviet chess, great terror in chess and how soviets handle to keep the WCC for as long as they could. Regards, OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Muskie72 was blocked as the sock of an indef-blocked user, but OGB probably wasn't going to contribute anything worthwhile to Wikipedia anyway. Someone else could run with it. Thanks for the book suggestion—it sounds interesting and I'd like to read it. Quale (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Picking up on User:Quale's post, I'd say that the Soltis book has at least some material relating to the politics of that period and may well be useful. Wade's book, on the other hand, is more dedicated to player biographies, events, and notable games. One candidate book familiar to Quale, which may have temporarily slipped his mind, is Chess: A History of a Game by Eales. It pretty much covers the development of the game throughout chess history, at least up until the Fischer/Karpov era. One more, that I confess I haven't read in a while but broaches this topic, is Total Chess by Spanier; there are separate chapters on 'The Soviet Mind' and 'Politics'. I recall that I found this a very good yet somewhat overlooked book, and I think not too difficult to find at a reasonable price. Brittle heaven (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Harmonising the chess diagram template

There have been a few requests at the Graphics Lab in recent years to add pieces to the chess diagram template, like the elephant and ship, and I've now started trying to complete a full set of fairy pieces and so forth. The work so far is here and shows a comparison between the current set and the new pieces (I've been swapping some out for my own testing, but all the normal pieces are visible bottom-right). I've used the current images as a basis, as well as this set from which the suggestions further down the page come.
I'm doing this as much for my own satisfaction as anything else, but I am very curious to know if this would be helpful to complete in its entirety. In my opinion the new pieces, being made at 26x26 instead of 45x45, look cleaner, but the main point of this is to give pieces more logical letters, instead of having inverted pieces throughout and various fairy pieces placed very oddly (fool at "t" for instance).
I also hope to condense the various chess diagrams into one multifunctional template, but that is something I will worry about later, if at all.
If you are keen to see any fairy pieces that aren't on the list of proposals, have any issues with the current placement of fairy pieces, or just want to tell me not to waste my time, please do get in touch, either on the testing page or here. Cheers! NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume from the silence that nobody minds, at least? If so I'll crack on. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 19:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So far, it looks fantastic. Great job! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd like, if possible, to have some pages to test the new diagram on just to make sure it could be rolled out without damaging too much. Any ideas? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 18:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić

Chess-related deletion discussion. This one's featured (so far) one conflict-of-interest editor, one IP never commenting on any other topic and one claim of sockpuppet connections, so attention from neutral and uninvolved experts on the subject would be highly welcome. Sideways713 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock puppet of indef-blocked User:OGBranniff. He's done this before recently. (See User:Muskie72 in a section just earlier on this page.) Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OGBranniff. Quale (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't believe you. It seems like more fear-mongering hysteria. My friend User:Mendoza2909 does not believe you either. By the way, I hear Grand Rapids, Michigan is lovely this time of year. Thank you. Runsledale (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lampenstein made a similar comment about my city 15 days ago, see this edit. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Slav Defense edit history

Where is it? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be at Slav Defense itself, not at the Defence titled article which it redirects to now. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 18:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It was a bad cut-and-paste move that was also contrary to WP:ENGVAR. I warned the editor and put things back. Quale (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

changes to checkmate

There have been a lot of changes to checkmate recently, probably because it has been nominated for GA. One thing, though, most of the times when moves were given in columns, they have been rewritten to go in text. What do you feel about that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Observation. From Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions: "Articles can be nominated by anyone, though it is highly preferable that they have contributed significantly". However, the nominator in this instance, User:Epicgenius, had no edits to the article prior to nominating (other than adding a diagram version of the lede photo, and trying to move it around a few times, just minutes before nominating -- an edit addition I reverted as unnecessary and cluttering). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Observation. No chess article edits in the nominator's edit history. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Observation. The Checkmate article has averaged over 900 views per day over the last month. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Chess project members may want to get in on the GA discussion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lalić (3rd nomination)

This one's up for deletion again, after the original nomination closed as a WP:NPASR too-messy-to-judge and the next nomination had technical problems. Sideways713 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't count the number of votes but I did read it all, and it seemed to me that the consensus was to delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I got that impression as well. (Thanks for fixing my botched Afd nom, Sideways713) Sasata (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Leader

Hello. Does this Wikiproject have a leader, or "president" or anything? If not, I would like to nominate myself for the position. I oould really do this group a lot of good. It'll be good times. Brocktoon Belvedere (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Application denied. --SubSeven (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the project, Brocktoon Belvedere has been indefinitely blocked. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Use a Javascript chess library for diagrams

It's too bad that chess diagrams are static images and require someone to read chess notation easily, thus making the articles less accessible. There's javascript libraries like jchess that allows us to generate diagrams that the user can manipulate easily (see examples). Albeit some small modifications, what kind of constraint exists in adopting this? Security constraints for example? 89.82.190.163 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra Obolentseva

What do you think about the article Alexandra Obolentseva? With five photos, it seems a little like a vanity page. Also, the editor that started it and did most of the early work on it doesn't edit much else, if anything. OTOH, most of the other people listed at World Youth Chess Championship also have articles. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Pages like that about very young people concern me and make me rather uncomfortable, but I don't have a specific recommendation. My hope is that someone else will suggest something that will strike me as obviously correct once I hear it. Quale (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree; there's no obvious course of action. On balance, I'd probably leave as is. There is little doubt she merits an article, although it's puzzling that no French/ Polish/ German equivalent article exists. The red-links at pl.wikipedia, do however suggest that an article is on the cards. Also, I remember the Natalia Pogonina page being stuffed full of photos in her early chess playing days, but that page has now settled down to a modest 3-photo format; most likely this will go the same way. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

chess variants in index of chess articles

There are quite a few Category:Chess_variants. I'm wondering if there should be a category for them in index of chess articles, like "general", "tournaments", "openings", and "biographies". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a very good idea. Technically, they don't belong in with the rest of the articles, as they are not part of the game of chess. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Or ... taking things further ... if it is currently an 'index of chess articles', then including variants is technically incorrect whether sub-sectioned or not. So to be correct, we could either add a separate 'index of chess variant articles' or change the existing title to 'index of chess and chess variant articles'. It's a bit pedantic, I know. Brittle heaven (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Chess board2

{{Chess board2}} has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

New chess diagram template

See Template talk:Chess diagram#New version of this template. Frietjes (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Can someone summarize in non-tech English please? (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Traffic

I thought this was pretty interesting (VIEW hits on Glossary of chess).

(Does anyone know how to identify the highest traffic'd chess-related articles?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a link on the main page of this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes! (Awesome, thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, a very interesting page. I am surprised that Glenn Flear is in the top 30. I wonder if that's typical or just a brief trend right now. Quale (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For some reason there was a huge interest for about a month, see this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:12 players chess board.jpg

File:12 players chess board.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Link? How about adding File:INVENTED CIRCULAR CHESS FOR 2,3,4,6 Players. which made him youngest patent holder of India and youngest disabled patent holder of the world.jpg, and File:Latest invented and innovated variant of 60 Players Circular Chess by an amazing special kid Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati from India who is also the youngest patent holder and youngest disabled patent holder of the world for his inventions.jpg. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute at World Chess Championship 2013

User:Nickst has recently added head-to-head results between Carlsen and Anand to the article World Chess Championship 2013. Previously User:SubSeven and I agreed on Talk:World Chess Championship 2013 that such information should not be included, as it is not relevant to the event. Including the results of games that were played before Carlsen entered FIDE's top 100 (or even 10) list is as misleading as it gets. Elo ratings and the opinions of top chess players and commentators are in my opinion the most that we should mention, as those things are actually related to recent events.

I'd appreciate other opinions on this. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, my previous statement was in regards to head-to-head records being shown for all eight of the players in the candidates tournament. --SubSeven (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

An important point (though you wrote "stuff like head-to-head records"). What do you think of the inclusion of this information? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• H2H is an important information for tournament preview. Now each WCh article since 2006 has H2H section, thats why I added info for 2013 match. NickSt (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But as I already wrote above, games played when one player was significantly weaker than he is nowadays do not "preview" much, and are misleading. If Anand had won a game against Carlsen when the latter was eight years old, would you mention that, as a "preview" (of what, anyway?)? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One player was significantly weaker? Because his age? It makes no difference. They were GM during all matches. It was official FIDE games calculated for rating. Many big rivalries with different age players have own articles in wikipedia, for example see Category:Tennis rivalries. By the way, why we have no article about Karpov–Kasparov rivalry? NickSt (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

He was weaker because he was weaker. (That was tough.) The rest of your post promotes an "all GMs are equally strong" fallacy, or discusses individual articles on rivalries. World Chess Championship 2013, however, deals with a World Chess Championship. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate Toccata quarta's concern about Carlsen being much less experienced than Anand during their first meetings. However, on the list of games between them their first game was in 2005 when Carlsen had already achieved the GM title (and Carlsen was at that point able to score 1 of 4 against Anand), so the concern is quite a bit muted. I would recommend including the head to head statistics if and only if a reliable source has included the head to head statistics in the context of the upcoming 2013 match. Otherwise, including it starts skirting the edges of WP:SYNTH, especially if it implies that the previous results can be used as a predictor for the outcome of the match. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sjakkalle on this. If a respected source can be found that gives the head-to-head record in the context of coverage of the match, then Wikipedia can and probably should include it. Absent this the head-to-head numbers should be omitted. I know that writings about the 1972 WC match often mention the head-to-head records of Fischer versus Spassky, so this information can be relevant. I have also several times said that compiling career records from online game databases such as chessgames.com is a WP:SYNTH violation and these databases are not reliable sources for this purpose. I think Tocatta has a different opinion on this, but the databases can't be demonstrated to be accurate and complete. Quale (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I did know that "their first game was in 2005 when Carlsen had already achieved the GM title" (I'm one of the main editors of Wikipedia's article on Carlsen), but not all GMs are equally strong, and there is a significant difference in strength between players rated 2548 and 2868 ([6]). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, if reliable sources will ever discuss the head-to-head results between Carlsen and Anand in the context of this year's World Chess Championship, they will probably take into account when the games were played; see for instance:

"Ivanchuk has been burned one too many times by Carlsen, with his lone wins against the Norwegian both coming in 2008." ([7])

"The score between the two players may only be 18-17 in Anand's favour but Gelfand has not beaten the Indian in a classical game since 1993(!)." ([8])

Toccata quarta (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Some references for Anand vs Carlsen rivalry:
  • The Times of India, "Anand vs Carlsen fills void for Fischer vs Kasparov": Moreover, the Indian has better opening repertoire, 6-2 head to head record against Carlsen and better nerves. [9]
  • InfoBarrel, "Carlsen Anand Head-to-Head and Other Facts": Right now, the head to thead score is +6 -2 =20 in favor for Anand but things are not as simple as it seems. [10]

NickSt (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

InfoBarrel appears to be a Wiki (user created website). Toccata quarta (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that InfoBarrel is not a WP:RS reliable source, but The Times of India seems perfectly satisfactory to cite for the head-to-head record. Quale (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Times of India are now referenced in the article, but chessgames.com (which I have no problem with) is still used as a source for the detailed table. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com again

I'm not sure what Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/chess.com player is supposed to mean, but it may be worth keeping an eye close to it. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

new chess diagrams - pieces fuzzy

I like the new way chess diagrams are done. But comparing the new ones to my memory of the old ones, the pieces look fuzzy. Has anyone else noticed this? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Agree the new diags are improvement (i.e. notation shrunk a bit). I'm guessing the resolution is same as before. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Squares that have pieces are white, i.e. the "transparency" effect is not working for me (I'm using Firefox). Is anyone else having this problem? Sasata (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not me. (Am using Firefox 20.0.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I sporadically see this problem with Chrome version 27.something. "DrZukhar (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)"

How does this work?

I just created a new chess article. How does it become part of WikiProject Chess? Is it automatic via some sort of Bot search? Do I need to nominate or submit it somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrZukhar (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the article that DrZukhar is referring to is 1904 Cambridge Springs International Chess Congress. Talk:1904 Cambridge Springs International Chess Congress includes the banner of WP:CHESS, which should associate the article with this project. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Castling Notation: Why O-O-O is better than 0-0-0

On Wikipedia I see a preference for using the number zero, 0, in castling notation rather then the uppercase letter 'O'.

To me it's fairly obviously wrong to use a zero instead of a 'O', but lets look at both sides:

Case for 'O':

   The standard for chess notation, PGN, uses 'O'. There are at least 5 million games recorded in this format. People pasting data to or from a database or program
   will all be using 'O'. But it's not an arbitrary decision. 'O' was chosen for consistency, so that all chess moves start with a letter (an upper case letter for 
   non-pawn moves) and for ease of parsing by allowing simple differentiation between move numbers, game termination markers and moves. Also in many fonts the
   zero character has a slash through it (ex. Consolas in Windows). With those fonts the Wikipedia style castling looks like "Ø-Ø-Ø", which is obviously not what 
   anyone would want.

Case for '0':

   FIDE Handbook, appendix C.13 - This is referenced on the wiki page for Algebraic notation. I'm guessing this is the reason that 0 is used on Wikipedia.
   However, it's not so simple. While it's true that FIDE uses the digit zero in their handbook you must look at the context. Appendix C is about a 
   notation for player's scoresheets. Scoresheets are written by players during the game. In that context there's absolutely no difference between
   0 and O, they're both just hand written circles that the player draws. So when it came time to type up the FIDE handbook and a representation of a circle was needed
   the typist arbitrarily chose zero.
   

So, what's better? An established standard that specifically uses 'O' for consistent and logical reasons or a typographical accident that uses '0' to represent a hand drawn circle?

DrZukhar (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)