Talk:World Chess Championship 2013

bare URLs

What is necessary to get removed the advice that the article uses bare URLs for citations? From my viewpoint there is a reference for every single information from the top to the bottom of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.238.94 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pairings

The pairings for the Candidates Tournament have just been published. Should they be reproduced in this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary IMO. Especially since it's DRR. --SubSeven (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case, pairings have now been added into the article. I'm surprised by one thing; the rounds are supposed to be mirrors; in other words, the colours in round 1 are inverted in round 8, round 2 is inverted in round 9, etc. However, round 14 is the mirror of round 6, while round 13 mirrors round 7. Is this some howler that the official site has caused to be spread all over the Internet, or is this deliberate? Toccata quarta (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was also wondering about that? I double-checked to make sure it wasn't a mistake on my side. But Chessbase has the same pairings. I suggest we pay close attention if something changes. Fischer47392 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a common scheduling practice in double round-robins. For the first half of the tournament, the sixth and seventh rounds of the typical Berger round-robin table are swapped around. I believe the reason is that it prevents any player from having the same color three times in a row. In a single round-robin, player number 1 has the color distribution WWBWBWB. If we make this a double round-robin and tack on a mirror image of this, the continutation would be BBWBWBW, giving WWBWBWBBBWBWBW overall, and we see three Blacks in a row in the middle. Player nr 5 would likewise have three Whites in a row at the tournament's midpoint. By transposing the sixth and seventh rounds, the color allocation for player 1 becomes WWBWBBWBBWBWBW, where I have bolded the swapped rounds, and we see that we have avoided three in a row of the same color. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

new article for candidates tournament

I think we should create new article for candidates tournament. Thoughts? -Abhishikt (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Articles such as World Chess Championship 1960, World Chess Championship 1972 and many others include information about the relevant qualification events. See also WP:SPINOUT. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly a notable tournament. So if you want to improve it to a bigger article i'd be ok with that. If it stays with this much info it currently has. Just a bit more than the crosstable, it doens't make much sense splitting. -Koppapa (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The article can have previous head-2-head records against each other. The chess news sites (chessbase.com, chessvibes.com) has lot of such statistics. And this is much anticipated and followed tournament, so there should be many people editing the article. -Abhishikt (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Those things are not relevant to this article. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Careful with stuff like head-to-head records, they have nothing to do with the actual event. --SubSeven (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My favorite WC article is World Chess Championship 1963, although I'm not in the slightest bit objective because I worked on it a bit. I drew from all the reliable sources I had available and covered the Zonals, Interzonal, and Candidates as thoroughly as I could and it still wasn't enough material to justify a separate article from the main championship. (Actually Timman's book on Curaçao 1962 could be used to say a bit more about the Candidates. And also the article should give quite a bit more detail on the championship match itself, which is really given short shrift in the article.) We have more sources available in 2013 (although we probably won't have a Sports Illustrated story this time—"The Russians have fixed world chess") and so we should be able to do an even better job on this article. Quale (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a good article. Yes. -Koppapa (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ideas to improve

Info that could be added to the Candidates tournament are: Venue, Prize-pool, (online) Broadcasting or is it even on TV somewhere? -Koppapa (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an explanation as to why Anand has to defend his title only one year after his last defense of it. Previously, the cycle was always two years or three. Has the world championship changed to an annual event now? WHPratt (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"TB"

I was considering adding "TB" information to this article, and found out that ChessBase uses "TB", while ChessVibes has "SB" (presumably meaning "Sonneborn-Berger"). Are those terms/abbreviations being used interchangeably in this case? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but I think they are equivalent. Presumably "SB" is "Sonnenborn-Berger" as you suggest, and I assume "TB" is simply the more generic "Tie Break". I think that SB is the most well known of tie break methods and that sometimes any tie break computed as a score might be somewhat carelessly called SB even if it isn't. There are some interesting articles in Category:Chess tournament systems. Someone here with more tournament experience (maybe as a TD) might be able to give you a more definitive answer. Quale (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Chessbase's TB means tie-break and is the SB score. That however is irrelevant. I added the tie-break conditions for the tournament below the table. SB score is only the third tiebreaker. Also note, only tied for first place are officially broken. -Koppapa (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Currently Radjabov would be before Kramnik because he has 1 win, Kramnik has 0. SB is only the third tie-breaker. Please remember. Won't edit it in, because it'll change anyway today and each day (and it's a hassle) ;) -Koppapa (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Crosstable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7

Should the crosstable really have two 7s? I won't get into an edit war here, since I had my edit reverted back already, but this is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.74.246 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Or at least be consistent if for some reason we're representing tie scores that way: 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.74.246 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As per regulations there are no tie-breakers except for first. Thus two players share 2nd place currently, 3 share 4th and 2 share 7th. Thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the added '#' column, I didn't add it but I do think it makes sense (in addition to the 'Place' column). It corresponds to the 1 - 8 column headings and makes it easy to see which matchup the individual game scores refer to. If you don't have a unique identifying number for each player, the table is a bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.74.246 (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is there an argument about this? Obviously you need a column with 1-8 for the player number, and another one for the place ranking (if that is desired). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.238.84.65 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"corresponds to the 1 - 8 column headings". Didn't think of that. It was just too obvious for me. Ok, could be added back in. -Koppapa (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute

Edit warring is not welcome at Wikipedia. Please resolve your dispute here, User:Koppapa and User:Tsasaa12. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Time control

Hi!

Does anyone know if these games are played with the following time control: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one?

Or is another form of time control used?

Regards, Kmw2700 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you are referring to the candidates it is 2 hours for 40 moves, then 1 hour for 20 moves. After that 15 minutes for the rest of the game but now with a 30 second increment per move. [1] Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I have little experience with editing infoboxes, so I had no success adding a "Participants" heading to the one in this article. On that note, I notice that the articles on the 2008, 2010 and 2012 World Championships do not use that heading either. I do not consider that ideal. What do others think? Toccata quarta (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just a wikitable. Basically add

|-
| colspan=2 |'''Participants:'''

behind 1st row of infobox or something like that. -Koppapa (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply (and your edit). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO it's unnecessary, the player photos are labelled "Defending champion" and "Challenger" so I think that's self-explanatory. (Perhaps if those labels were moved from their current locations to top of their respective photos!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I have changed the article accordingly, although I wish the three words at the top could be a bit bigger (though not as big as when <big> is used). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think looks very nice & professional now (& no wasted space). Agree that 'big' markup is too big. (I'll try & research something in-between.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That was easy. (I set it to 115% size just to see if it would work, and it did. Feel free to set it to any size you prefer.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good now. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Still need numbers for the Championship prizes

Winner/loser get what? --71.174.167.178 (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Result tables

Currently the article has two tables for the results of the games. Maybe the first should be removed. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I !vote keeping the first table (normal table), making it checkered (color representations), and leaving calendar dates, "opening cerimony", "tie breaks", and "closing cerimony" to appropriate text descriptions elsewhere. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd keep the second then. "When is the next match?" will be one of the most asked questions about this match. So having that info easily available is a pro. -Koppapa (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried something. (If don't like it, just revert.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not a chance—very nice work! Toccata quarta (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does it take so long for the results table to be refreshed after a new result. It took almost TWO WHOLE MINS. to put in game six's results. Let's get on this, its the Twenty First century. This delay is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.53 (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOFIXIT. Most Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and they have no obligation to hand anything to you on a silver plate. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Illness clause

Should this be mentioned in the article? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Please add it. Thanks. Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 00:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Opening in Game 1

I changed the opening in Game 1 to A07 Reti or KIA. Seems appropriate based on what many sources and database label it (e.g., This Week in Chess, Internet Chess Club, and Hiarcs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.120.16 (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's wrong. What you reverted, Neo-Grunfeld Defence, was correct. (Sjakkalle's original post.) As I aleady included in an edit sum, Carlsen's 8.c4 transposed into ECO Edition III D78, p. 423-24, a game Lehmann-Gereven, Wilk ann Zee 1972. In addition, on the article's Chessbase link, [2], you'll find D78 listed, as well as in GM Daniel King's overview video shown there. (Not everyone is guaranteed to get this right, and the competing sources you named, simply didn't.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. The game clearly opens as a Reti. That it transposes doesn't mean that the path wasn't one of a Reti and the path is usually what is of interest to editors and readers. Plus, I'm not sure I trust one source (Chessbase.com) over multiple sources. Besides GM King's video and Chessbase.com are a single source (not two as you portray with the "as well as" phrase). Just something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.120.16 (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're still wrong. According to your logic 1.f4 e5 2.e4 s/b classified Bird's Opening not King's Gambit because it starts 1.f4. According to your logic 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 is a Vienna Game not a Four Knights Game because it starts 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3. And 1.c4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 is an English Opening not a Queen's Gambit because it starts 1.c4. The D78 designation is not only on GM Daniel King's Youtube video carried by the Chessbase site, it is on the game score at the above link. Also you seem to want to count sources and compare numbers of them rather than weigh reliability. You haven't given me "something to think about" because your ideas are misled and just plain wrong on this topic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

First, Anand himself refers to the opening of game 1 as Reti. Second, that it transposes goes both way. Also, your use of the word "reliability" is incorrect. (Why is GM King more reliable than others?) In short, your arguments against mine are tendentious and captious (and rather rude). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.120.16 (talk • contribs)

Your standard for opening classification The game clearly opens as a Reti. That it transposes doesn't mean that the path wasn't one of a Reti and the path is usually what is of interest to editors and readers. shows that you don't know what you're talking about. But you're persistent. And you call me "tendentious". Go figure. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. Please give that Anand link, I'm curious to read it. Thx.

"the path is usually what is of interest to editors and readers" -- This is deeply wrong; chess players care about the position, not the "path". -- Jibal (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Several databases classify the opening too early. From a chessical standpoint, transpositions are significant because when a theoretical position has arisen, that is of more importance than the order of moves that brought it about. It is certainly not a KIA, because White played d2-d4 (in a KIA White plays d2-d3), and d2-d4 is usually not played in the Reti either. Once White plays d2-d4, the character of the game becomes much closer to the 1.d4 openings, in this case the Neo-Grünfeld. As Ihardlythinkso noted, several sources have classified the game under the "D78" code, which is a Neo-Grünfeld line. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I doubt players view games from this correspondence/database view. Instead, they view games as evolving from a clear opening. Again, that it transposes goes both ways. That it is uncommon for a Reti, is a stronger point, but not sure I agree. I'll await for more analysts to way in, not more Wikipedians (no offense...it's just that this isn't settled by consulting a transposition). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.120.16 (talk • contribs)

What you doubt is irrelevant, and you clearly aren't familiar with the subject. Two games that reach the same opening position from different sequences of moves will always be characterized the same, because it's the position that counts, not the sequence of moves. -- Jibal (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a dead issue, but every single one of at least a half dozen chess columns I've read refers to this opening as Reti, and nothing else. This Wikipedia article is the ONLY reference other than Reti. This issue is costing us credibility, IMHO. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 03:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, ChessBase identifies it as D78, and D78 is in the Neo-Grunfeld. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

GM Daniel King, on his Youtube analysis vid, identifies as D78. Plus as above, I located in ECO III D78 the position after 8.c4. It is D78. And D78 is not the Reti. (If WP is in a minority for saying so, that s/ give extra credence to WP for being in the few that have it right. Your thinking is topsy-turvy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, you believe you are right because you believe you are right. That's not an argument. The transposing and one GM's agreement are the only arguments you have. Concluding that your argument is greater than others simply because you hold it adds nothing. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.120.16 (talk • contribs)

Although sources will sometimes disagree on classification of the opening for a particular game, usually due to transpositions, when White plays d4 early it is no longer a Réti. As Réti Opening says, "In modern times the Réti refers only to the configuration Nf3 and c4 by White with ...d5 by Black, where White fianchettos at least one bishop and does not play an early d4.". We have to follow reliable sources, but I think game 1 is correctly identified as a Neo-Grüenfeld. Quale (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@69.66, Daniel King's vid and finding the line in ECO III are not "the only arguments" I have, but they should be sufficient. (The fact they aren't sufficient for you is not my problem. You've heard from several other WP:CHESS members here who know what they are talking about. Time for you to learn something.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

More insults for Ihardlythinkso (even the name is one). :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.1.203 (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Checkmate! :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That you have something to learn isn't an insult, it's a fact. It's odd that someone who clearly knows little about chess is arguing with those who do. -- Jibal (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Game 1 summary quote

There are three errors in the quote "seeking to forego and advantage to 'just play chess'": Two misspellings, of 'forgo' and 'an'. There is also a third error. Carlsen's goal wasn't to get a disadvantage, surely. He was seeking to "just play chess", forgoing an advantage, rather. I vote for reverting to Ihardlythinkso's version "forgoing an advantage to...". Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If anything, this whole "forgoing" stuff should be dropped, since it is WP:OR. We can't know what was going on in Carlsen's head. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i wonder for days what is meant. Really hard to understand sentence for a non native speaker. We should use another source for that game. -Koppapa (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote it, and reduced the text to bare basics. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good fix! Regarding the original research part, there is no difference between quoting or describing what the reference (intends to) say. That the reference might be in the wrong is a different issue. Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

game 6 description

There are problems with the game 6 description, in particular "only-move 60.b4 led to a draw". This is NOT in the source. First, "only-move" is bad English. Second, it DID NOT lead to a draw. I don't find "only-move" or "led to a draw" in the source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the verbatim wording of the source is "60.b4! is the only move to hold the draw, if barely". Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my bad command of the English language. Feel free to rewrite the passage in light of the quotation that Sjakkalle provided above. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"it DID NOT lead to a draw" -- yes it did, just as a road leads to a lake regardless of whether you take the road. -- Jibal (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Photographs

Are there any photographs from the ongoing match and the 2013 Candidates Tournament that could be legally included in this article? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Photos are always nice. Try googling --- maybe with the license you want, e.g. "creative commons", and a description of the photos you are after, e.g. "Carlsen". Restrict it to the last week or so. Below is a link with a photo that you could use. It uses a less strict license than Wikipedia's. Or does Wikipedia require that the license must be exactly Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike? Then you'll have to use that in the search. Maybe try to search Flickr too. They have a creative commons search option that you can tic. http://www.eldiario.es/politica/Anand-Carlsen-firman-tercera-partida_0_195980904.html Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of games

I can't find any info in the article in regards to the number of games should one of the two win or defend the WC early. Will there still be twelve games regardless or is the tournament finished once there is definite winner? Could that info, if available, be added? Calistemon (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

If one of them gets to 6-1/2 points before game 12, the match is over. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is correct. I'll add this info. Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Links in results table

What do you think about these edits? I'm not sure if it's necessary to add links to ChessBomb there, since the broadcasts on that site can be accessed through the official site. One could also argue that links to chessgames.com/chessbase.com would be preferable, since the first loads faster and the second has published in-depth analyses of all the games that have been played in the match so far. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is EL'ing in the body text counter to MoS in the first place (i.e. those ELs s/b in Refs)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The links at chessgames.com/chessbase.com load faster because they don't contain a complete analysis of four alternative lines of play at every single half move. (Click any of the four lines under the Analysis heading, and you can play out that line on the board by using the next move arrow. Close that line of analysis by clicking the red "x".) That's a lot of analysis packed into the ChessBomb application. Another reason I used that one is because it is embedded by Fide itself (see this link), so it has official sanction. Yes, the links could be moved to Refs, but there's a lot to be said for the convenience of going directly from the results table, rather than having to scroll to the end of the article just to look up a game, or worse yet, not even knowing that it is available in Refs at all. I think making articles more useful to the reader is a value for which we should all strive. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 20:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It is *always* more convenient to click on an EL, than to go to the Ref note and click on that. (So I don't really buy an argument based on "convenience", since the crafters of the MoS all knew that clicking on an EL is always more convenient, all of the time, in any article on any topic.) Also, one doesn't have to "scroll down" to find the ref note - you simply click on the superscript ref note and it takes you down to that specific ref note (no scrolling necessary). We're left with WP:ILIKEIT. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:EL says "they should not normally be used in the body of an article." So I guess there are exceptions. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Seconds

I think the section about seconds could be phrased better, both regard Anand and Carlsen. It is somewhat confusing who actually are Anand's seconds for the match. According to Chessbase, "Anand broke that news that he was being assisted by Krishnan Sasikiran, Sandipan Chanda, Peter Leko (Hungary), and Radoslaw Wojtaszek (Poland)." Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Related information. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"20th world champion"

Calling Carlsen the 20th world chess champion is problematic. First of all, respected chess sources have described him as the 16th undisputed world chess champion; I have yet to see any that has described him as the 20th. Second, "20th world champion" implies chronology, which is hard to achieve when there are simultaneous world championships. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I made another try by simply removing 16th/20th. As the article is about The World Chess Championship and talks about the new World Chess Champion the NPOV in my opinion would be to avoid numbering along the undisputed chess champions (who are a subset of the world chess champions). When the title was split there is still a chronology, but simply there are two world chess champions during a given period (the title is simply split). Fourtytwoplus (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)