Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

Gender neutral language

Though much of this relatively lengthy thread is well-intentioned, there doesn't seem a reason to keep it open when (a) it's still unclear as to why it's a matter that needs addressing here rather than Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and (b) it's been plagued by off-topic arguments about editor behavior and personal affronts -- and shows no signs of moving back into productive territory. No objections if someone wants to unhat to continue discussion, but at this point it might even be more effective to start a new section.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Chess books have traditionally used the masculine pronoun when referring to an indeterminate player, e.g. an article on an opening variation might say "White will have trouble maintaining his pawn centre". This no longer seems appropriate. A few alternatives to consider:

White will have trouble maintaining her pawn centre. Draws too much attention to itself. Don't like it, unless it's referring to an actual player who happens to be female.
White will have trouble maintaining his or her pawn centre. Ugly.
White will have trouble maintaining their pawn centre. The singular they is still not universally accepted, however I prefer this to the preceding alternatives. Forget about any weird invented pronouns such as "hir".
White will have trouble maintaining the pawn centre. Slightly less precise, but the meaning is clear enough since White would hardly want to maintain Black's (or anyone else's) pawn centre. This is a little reminiscent of European languages such as French and German, in which it is normal to use definite articles rather than possessive pronouns when referring to parts of the body.
White's pawn centre will be difficult to maintain. My preferred option - rephrase it to avoid using third person singular pronouns altogether.

I'd like to get a discussion going on this, with a view to formulating a policy on gender-neutral language and including it under the Conventions subheading. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This no longer seems appropriate. To whom? And why not? I don't agree w/ your supposition. (The MOS was written generically perhaps by authors that didn't play board games let alone chess. And that wouldn't be the first time either -- MOS had to be updated e.g. to allow hidden text as a part of chess problems/puzzles solutions.) Much of the time "he/him/his" is the best text. A single example of a successfully rewritten sentence can give false impression that any sentence w/ masculine pronoun can be just as easily rewritten, and it'd be unworkable to make a "policy" on same. (For examples illustrating the difficulty of extracating "he/him/his" in games [mostly chess] article texts, see some that I listed at the end of this thread.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

White's pawn centre will be difficult to maintain. That's your preference, but it is tip-toeing around mentioning any player, and even subracting the player from the sentence. (What a shame! To force a construct, that always implies a player, but gosh -- never referring to the player whose actually sitting there making the moves, and effectively owns that pawn centre.) For "gender-neutral" objectives, it seems that meaning and construct destruction goes hand-in-hand. It's not worth it. Freedom of writing constructs is paramount to good writing. Tying one's hands (or more to the point: "gagging" the writer-editor) ain't no good policy never, nohow!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Try this experiment: Change the example sentence you chose ("White will have trouble maintaining his pawn centre") to something simpler: "White moved his king." Applying the same preference you chose, the result is: "White's king was moved." (We know White moved it. But that text is bad because it makes it strangely seem possible that it may have been moved by a tournament official. Or by his opponent!? Or a passerby!? Or by a ghost!??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Chess books have traditionally used the masculine pronoun when referring to an indeterminate player True. And I'd venture that modern books on chess theory continue to do so. (And if that's right, then those are our sources of convention to follow here on the WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant

Not appropriate to anyone who's got any awareness of current society, including the chess scene. It is certainly not a valid assumption that all chess players are male, and he/him/his should not be the preferred option in any context just because it is convenient. Even "his or her" is better than "his". MaxBrowne (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We have to go with what WP:Reliable sources do. (When you say "chess scene", are you including modern books on chess theory? Have you checked?) "He/him/his" is not exactly convenient -- it is often best text/best writing. "His or her" is not better (is it a use of double pronoun? WP:Use modern language essay: "Examples of the obsolete • Some of the most common usages that today are too archaic or dialectal for encyclopedic use include [...] Use of awkward double pronouns for gender neutrality: Rewrite to avoid the need for such contortions as his/her or (s)he. While still common informally, this practice is sloppy, redundant and non-encyclopedic.") Anyway, I really DO NOT LIKE "his or her" because it necessarily draws a difference in sex to a sentence, for example, where the only topic intended for the reader to focus on was about (e.g. in your example case) pawn centre. (Or, some other concept. [How does a reader focus on concepts, when differences of human gender/sex are constantly thrown at him? The answer is the poor reader must "wade through" the superfluous text, to get out of it what he wants -- the meaning. And that by definition is not good writing. Good writing serves up meaning efficiently. Throwing in miscellaneous, unrelated and unnecessary concepts like difference in sexual gender, does the opposite.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The example "White moved his king" is clearly referring to a specific game played by a specific player, rather than a theoretical game by an abstract player (such as in an opening or endgame text). If the player happens to be male then "White moved his king" is fine. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That misses the point. (Change the sentence, then, to: "White should move his king", ala a sentence in a book on opening theory. Result: "The king should be moved." That's ... weird IMO!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are honestly the last person I want to discuss this with. By the way, learn to use the preview button. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

...reason being your tendency to flood discussions with copious amounts of text, and reply to almost any comment. This has the effect of shutting down any reasonable discussion and deterring others from participating. It's bullying, basically. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're full of BS and unwarranted WP:Personal attacks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I will take acting lessons from Steven Seagal before I take civility lessons from you. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt to smear and defame and make this thread about me, shows what you are like. I contributed to this thread in good faith, then you initiated unwarranted accusations, insults, personal attacks. You can seriously fuck off for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No smearing or defaming here, they're your edits, not mine, and they speak for themselves. You have a long history of rude behaviour on wikipedia and your last edit only adds to a lengthy list. The admins really should have done something about you years ago, not just a short temp block. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a smear, Max; only your attempt to. This thread is not an ANI on me, dumbass, and I've done nothing here to deserve your crap. So seriously, fuck off. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I don't like assuming anyone's gender; I don't do it in everyday life and I don't do it here. I also don't see a valid alternative to your final example, which avoids a lot of clumsiness. There are times it won't read right first time, but you can usually tweak it to make it sound reasonable. Fortunately, I mostly write about specific players and so it's rarely an issue for me. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Max is right. What the majority of sources say is not relevant when what's at stake is not the meaning of the sentence but the stylistic choices involved in its presentation. We update language all the time when it doesn't significantly affect meaning simply because as an encyclopedia it should reflect our understanding of time-indifferent subjects in the language used today. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language: "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works [...] or to wording about one-gender contexts." Even if chess was far and away a male-dominated game (even more so than it is now), the latter is not applicable as it's not a strictly single-gender context. If quoting, use what the source says, otherwise if gender-neutral language is possible use it. Whether or not those who wrote the MOS play chess is not relevant as we're not talking about anything technical. All of the examples provided thus far might as well be talking about chemistry, tigers, beer, or painting. It's often challenging to do in certain sentences regarding all subjects. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I'm not sure how helpful your post is, because look at the topic of this thread again. (Max suggested a discussion because he wants a WP:CHESS convention how to make everything devoid of masculine pronouns.) What you're saying is simply "follow the MOS", and perhaps you misunderstood me, I have no problem with what MOS states about gender-neutral, except that I doubt the MOS writers appreciated the difficulty of ending up with good sentences re board games after stripping out masculine pronouns one way or another. (I don't know about other subject areas, how frequent or infrequent gender-specific pronouns occur in them, or what techniques are, and how good they work, when making gender-neutral. I'm only familiar with my own subjects.) So I'm not arguing against the MOS. The MOS says "where this can be done with clarity and precision", and that is the heart of the matter IMO. (And BTW, most all editors that have advocated gender-neutral that I have encountered, do not really want any exceptions. They will rewrite a sentence, no matter how dysfunctional, just to satisfy elimination of "his" as the sole pronoun. Max seems to be wanting a "policy", and no policy is needed because we already have the MOS. The problem is that those editors who rewrite to eliminate "his" sole pronoun, are willing to accept more ambiguity and confused sentences than I am, for example, because their interest is gender-neutral at whatever cost, whereas for me, good writing is first priority, not second. When you say "if gender-neutral language is possible use it", that seems well and dandy, but it is not really helpful, because it boils down again to how much harm is acceptable to any particular sentence, when forcing a square peg in a round hole, i.e. "where this can be done with clarity and precision" and "if gender-neutral language is possible use it" don't really recognize that minor or subtle harm in the way of dysfunction or ambiguity or confusion or awkwardness can be introduced into a sentence that is rewritten or reconstructed. There is no guide or objective criteria to decide what or how much harm is tolerated before rejecting the rewrite or reconstruction. That is a subjective call by the editor, and, the only logical basis to perform such a decision seems to me to be on the quality of the sentence -- good writing, and not some social language agenda that might be thought of as being achieved or furthered. So in short, those who are adamant to rewrite or reconstruct sentences to eliminate gender-specific tend to have that as their foremost priority, and are willing to accept more harm to sentences that what a talented writer would. (In fact if you look at some of the suggestions, one in this thread, and others in other places I could link, the suggestions are rather awful and horrifying sometimes. But those interested in gender-neutral haven't seemed to care about that. [Is that good? Not by me.]) It's often challenging to do in certain sentences That's right. And that takes skill -- lots of it. I'm not sure the average Wiki writer is up to that, can do that skillfully, and so we get a bunch of "his or her"s replacing "his" in articles, because that's easy. (I notice you're not weighing your opinion of that technique. It always works. And it is usually poor writing. Is WP willing to accept poor writing when that phrase is used, in trade for gender-neutral? That is the issue as far as I see it. And that is not addressed in the MOS. Max wanted a fixed policy of some sort, and I see you haven't commented on the wisdom of that idea, either. I can see where he's coming from, for example "their" to replace "his" would be a possible fixed solution. I think I would agree with him if there were a fixed solution out there. But "their" is not accepted. [If it is or will be, then maybe that's the answer. But it isn't, and probably it isn't accepted because of its inherent drawback re ambiguity w/ plural, I dunno.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Another subtle thing at play here is interpretation of masculine pronoun "his". When chess authors and book writers use "his", it is understood to mean "player" of either gender. Every chessplayer who has a library knows that. (Even some authors will state upfront in their work, they mean both genders whenever "his" occurs in their text.) When I wonder about how much MOS authors were addressing chess and board games, I was in effect wondering if they were aware of same. However, the argument still occurs and reoccurs in this thread and on other threads ("both men and women play chess!"). But that sidesteps the fact use of "his" in the literature is well-established -- it never meant "just men", and it doesn't mean that in any WP article, either. (To clarify the point, here's a thought-question: How about hatting somewhere for chess-related articles, the same as chess authors spell out sometimes, that "his" is not exclusionary? Those I've seen advocating gender-neutral would never agree with such an idea, because they seem to want no exceptions as mentioned and the use of solo masculine pronouns banished. To me that is responding to sight of the printed word, and willfully dismisses the known/established meaning of the word. [Again, did MOS writers understand the same as chess authors do that "he" is not exclusionary when used!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not sure I agree that reliable sources are irrelevant on stylistic points. (For example, WP:CHESS looks to reliable sources for other stylistic points, which as "White/white" and "Black/black" use. And lower-case for piece names. [Both of those conventions come from, say, The Oxford Companion to Chess and other works.] And if you think about it, the fact WP chess articles use algebraic notation at all, instead of roll-our-own notation system, is because that is what the outside world uses in the subject area. [And what do we do in that case? We explain how the convention works, currently, with a hat box or whatever. Philosophically, I see no difference between use of algebraic notation in WP chess articles, and use of pronoun "his" meaning both genders. Both are embraced by the subject area in the outside world.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic bickering

Once again you are bludgeoning the discussion by replying with copious amounts of text to anyone with a different opinion. Why don't you pipe down and let other people have a say? This is how concensus is reached, not by one person trying to dominate proceedings. Stop bullying other editors. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again you're the one adding personally offensive remarks uncalled for and that assume bad faith. You accuse me of all kinds of false things, which is both uncivil and shows a lot of hostility and disrespect. I have no interest to discuss anything personal with you. Quit baiting me here and elsewhere. You mischaracterize my contributions based on your own hostile agenda. If you don't like my opinions and thoughts in this thread topic, then sue me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

for someone as rude as yourself, you sound surprisingly thin-skinned. this is not a comfortable combination. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Who was rude? Who is falsely accusing me of "bullying" and other things in this thread without basis or provocation? Who is continually making derogatory personal remarks unprompted and inappropriate for the thread discussion topic? (I'll answer: Max. And now you, too.) Your editsum talked about "glass houses". Perhaps you s/ take your own editsum to heart, and get off my back with getting personal and derogatory. I did not initiate any of the personal hostility in this thread. But I'm apt to respond to any directed my way. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. ("Peace" in your sig and "glass houses" in your editsum. How hypocritical is that!?)

i'll only answer your first question, as i do not have answers for the rest: you asked "who was rude", and the answer is: you. telling another editor that their english is "subpar" is rude, IMO.

Anyone who takes the position, which you took, that "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave own king in check" is a better sentence than "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave his own king in check" has demonstrated their English is subpar. The fact that you professed in this thread that sentence rewrites and reconstructions were "easy", "boring", and "elementary", with the level of English that you have demonstrated to possess, is really inappropriate since you disqualified yourself from making such assessments already by your demonstration of a very poor English sentence which you evaluated as "better than the original" when that was grossly wrong. (You get emotional and attack me personally calling me a "rude person" when all the while the English talent to rewrite or reconstruct sentences "with clarity and precision" is germane to the topic of this thread ... so explain who it is that has "thin-skin" again -- me? Or you. (And if you can't see the hypocrisy in who you're calling "thin-skinned", that isn't my fault either.) BTW your insulting "glass houses" and "throwing stones" editsum, whatever you meant by it, was also personal and out of line. You are not my nanny. The fact you see insults where they do not exist is not my problem, and does not justify your personal derogatory comments aimed at me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

i said nothing personal before this assessment of yours, and i do not plan to say anything personal in the future. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: - You are correct I did indeed gloss the last line of @MaxBrowne:'s initial post aimed at adding something to the WikiProject Conventions section. I'm going to sidestep some of the above by focusing on the matter of chess-specificity. In addition to not quite understanding why Max is looking for what he's looking for, I also disagree with your view that use of gender-neutral pronouns is in any way different in the board game/chess context.

The way chess authors use "his" to mean "player" is the way "his" has been used historically. The use of "his" as a default singular is well-established in all literature (male or female farmer in a book about farming, any human being in a book about philosophy, etc.). It's that deep-rooted establishment that's seen as the problem and why Wikipedia's and other stylebooks have such a guideline to deal with it to begin with. The generic singular "he" is still understood today (taught in schools, even, though properly discouraged such that it's uncommon to see new work use it).

The WikiProject conventions draw from reliable sources to establish the likes of White/white/Black/black, use of algebraic notation, etc. because, as specific to chess, they are not adequately covered by the MOS and are important to the clarity of chess articles. The pronoun question, on the other hand, applies to sentences in chess articles and sources the same way it applies to other kinds of articles and sources. It's not about clarity; it's about a cultural shift in language use indifferent to any particular branch of literature.

In other words, I see no reason to reiterate what the MOS says here as the use of the gender-neutral guideline applies no differently here than it does elsewhere.

And for the record, I think the guideline should use stronger wording. To me, this is the clear direction language has moved/is moving. I do find myself frustrated by what I perceive as clunky wording that "he and she" and the like sometimes create, but I also consider not being gender-neutral due to bad wording a cop-out. There are effective ways to do it to minimize what we understand to be lesser writing, but we also need to remember the reason we see it as lesser writing is because of tradition and what we know. I don't think the next generation will have any issue with the kinds of sentences gender-neutral pronouns create. PS: I'm also one of those grammatical heretics entirely ok with use of an unambiguous singular "they." :) --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 10:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much agree w/ everything you've said. As prev mentioned, I don't know about other subject areas re their use of mansculine pronoun, so can't comment on that. (Neither am I in any position to remark on cultural shifts of language, etc., so I don't have anything to say about that either.) As prev mentioned, I don't think there is anything wrong w/ the MOS, and what is really at issue is when "with clarity and precision" is satisfied or not, and what level of compromise to sentence ambiguity/confusion/awkwardness is worth turning a sentence gender-specific to gender-neutral. And as prev mentioned, the enthusiasm/rush/agenda of some editors to rid articles of solo masculine pronouns without exception, obscures their ability to objectively evaluate a sentence for potential harm done in a rewrite or reconstruction, and that is also against the MOS (which of course says "where this can be done with clarity and precision"); the evaluation mechanism can be thus polluted by enthusiasm/personal agenda. (So far those disputes, and there have been very few, have been resolved by consensus. Not without drama. And I imagine that is always the way to do it. [Consensus, not the drama.] Max's objective here seems to be to circumvent the MOS and preempt those consensuses.) Last re There are effective ways to do it to minimize what we understand to be lesser writing is once again fine and dandy abstract concept (even though I think it's faulty by implying a rewrite or reconstruction can always be done; and I don't think anyone is wise enough to be able to know), it can give false impression that such a thing is easy to do (see one user's edit sum here calling the job "elementary"), when it often in fact is not, and thinking something is easy when it isn't necessarily, is a leading cause of failures, and additional disputes, since failure is personally embarrassing usually, and that combined with a possible personal investment referred to earlier to make the change in the first place, nasty emotion erupts, as you've probably already witnessed in this thread. Bottom line is it comes down to sentences dealt with individually, and possible discusson and need for consensus if there is objection, and that kind of formula though presumably WP-prescribed, doesn't seem to sit well with some editors wanting quick and/or unilateral change. (That said, I'd agree w/ you singular "they" could be a good candidate for unilateral solution, but as you mentioned that issue is bigger than this thread and isn't something can be resolved here. [I see User:Basalisk is dead against it, and, you guys know better about that.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Some real-life examples

From Sicilian Defence: "The pawn trade also opens the c-file for Black, who can place a rook or queen on that file to aid his queenside counterplay."
From Grünfeld Defence: "White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation."
From Lopez Opening: "Black can respond vigorously with 2...d5! to eliminate transpositional possibilities and solve all of his opening problems"
From Chess#Check: "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave his own king in check."
From King's Indian Defence: "The King's Indian is a hypermodern opening, where Black deliberately allows White control of the centre with his pawns, with the view to subsequently challenging it with the moves ...e5 or ...c5."
From Four Knights Game, Halloween Gambit: "After 4...Nxe5, White usually plays 5.d4 (5.f4 does nothing for his development), after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either g6 or c6."
From Sicilian Defence, Smith–Morra Gambit: "The plan for White is straightforward and consists of placing his bishop on c4 to attack the f7-square, and controlling both the c- and d-files with rooks, taking advantage of the fact that Black can hardly find a suitable place to post his queen."
From Rook and pawn versus rook endgame: "If the pawn is about to promote, the defending side may give up his rook for the pawn, resulting in an easily won endgame for the superior side (a basic checkmate). In a few cases, the superior side gives up his rook in order to promote the pawn, resulting in a won queen versus rook position (see Pawnless chess endgame#Queen versus rook)."
From Queen and pawn versus queen endgame: "The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which he is trying to promote."
From Queen's Gambit Declined, Rubinstein Trap: "Black loses a pawn after Nxd5 due to the threat of his queen being trapped on the back rank by White's Bc7."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

first, let me say that i also think articles should be gender neutral.

second, i think most of above examples seem pretty easy - you can either simply delete the pronoun or replace it with "the", and the style does not degrade, and may even improved:

#	current	simply remove pronoun, or replace with "the"
1	"The pawn trade also opens the c-file for Black, who can place a rook or queen on that file to aid his queenside counterplay."	"The pawn trade also opens the c-file for Black, who can place a rook or queen on that file to aid queenside counterplay."
2	"White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation."	"White can develop the pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation."
3	"Black can respond vigorously with 2...d5! to eliminate transpositional possibilities and solve all of his opening problems"	"Black can respond vigorously with 2...d5! to eliminate transpositional possibilities and solve all of the opening problems"
4	"It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave his own king in check."	"It is illegal to make a move that would put or leave the king in check." (alternatively, just remove pronoun. i prefer above line, but even below line is better than original) "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave own king in check."
5	"The King's Indian is a hypermodern opening, where Black deliberately allows White control of the centre with his pawns, with the view to subsequently challenging it with the moves ...e5 or ...c5."	"The King's Indian is a hypermodern opening, where Black deliberately allows White control of the centre with pawns, with the view to subsequently challenging it with the moves ...e5 or ...c5."
6	"After 4...Nxe5, White usually plays 5.d4 (5.f4 does nothing for his development), after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either g6 or c6."	"After 4...Nxe5, White usually plays 5.d4 (5.f4 does nothing for development), after which Black can retreat the attacked knight to either g6 or c6."
7	"The plan for White is straightforward and consists of placing his bishop on c4 to attack the f7-square, and controlling both the c- and d-files with rooks, taking advantage of the fact that Black can hardly find a suitable place to post his queen."	"The plan for White is straightforward and consists of placing the bishop on c4 to attack the f7-square, and controlling both the c- and d-files with rooks, taking advantage of the fact that Black can hardly find a suitable place to post the queen."
i stopped here because it seems boring and repetitive, but i believe that in 86.32% of cases, the pronoun can simply be removed, or replaced with "the" without leaving the article any worse, and in many cases it can even be viewed as improvement in style, irrespective of gender neutrality. admittedly, #9, and maybe also #3, probably require real rephrasing, slightly more complex than just removing the pronoun.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Stating above as you did that "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave own king in check." is better than the original "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave his own king in check." informs me that your English is subpar. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. i also think articles should be gender neutral. It isn't about what you do or don't think, unless your thought is about what is predominently used in reliable sources, weighed against existing WP guideline/policy, on which there is nothing specific re use of language when writing about chess or board games. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a question of being leftie and gender-neutral. Grammatical gender and natural gender are two completely different things. This is simple secondary school grammar - when the gender of the subject of a sentence is indeterminate, we use the masculine pronoun. This isn't controversial. The singular "they" is essentially slang and has no place in an encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean, he is not necessarily a male pronoun; it can be a male-and-female pronoun?? Why, then, was I taught he was a male pronoun when I was little?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

i think it's pretty clear. the guidelines are clearly stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language. so far, nobody raised any logical reason why chess articles should deviate from this clear and simple style guideline. it has nothing to do with "sources": sources are about content, not about style. i tried to demonstrate above that in many cases, one can simply remove the pronoun (or, in some cases, replace the pronoun with "the") without losing anything. another user criticized one of my examples, stating he was "informed" by this example that my english is subpar. this may be so, but the fact remains that in most cases, a gender neutral phrasing can be used without any reduction of "clarity and precision" as the manual of style directs. if anyone can come up with a good reason why chess articles should deviate from the guideline, please do so. otherwise, articles should adhere to it. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Basalisk: - Who is this plural "we" that still produces new work using the generic "he?" It's part of English, yes. It's still understandable, yes. It's not controversial grammatically, but to say it's not controversial or that it's accepted best practice today ignores not just social climate but updated laws, most if not all of the major style guides including ours, and 60 years of scholarship on language use and social norms.

The singular they doesn't have to be the solution you go with, but if you have a problem with it take it up with the style guide that permits it while at the same time encourages gender neutrality. Ultimately, however, we're heading off on this discussion I didn't want to get into here since I'm still not seeing any evidence there's anything about it specific to chess (and because somehow I imagine this exact same conversation has played out a hundred times over there). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the points raised:

I don't believe any of the examples given are "too difficult" to rephrase using gender neutral language. Let's take the "check" example; we need look no further than the official FIDE laws. "No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check."
Our language is definitely heading away from the use of gender-specific language when referring to abstract or indeterminate people, and wikipedia's policy on gender-neutral language reflects this. I do not accept that chess, or board and card games in general, are somehow an exception to this policy.
The fact that chess literature has traditionally not used gender neutral language is irrelevant. When referencing a source, there is no necessity to copy the style of language used by the source unless quoting directly.
Suggesting that it is somehow too difficult to use gender-neutral language in a games-related context shows a lack of imagination.
A note to this effect in the Conventions section seems reasonable:

Although chess literature has traditionally used the masculine pronoun when referring to an unnamed or abstract player, contributors are encouraged to use gender-neutral language, in accordance with wikipedia's Manual of Style.

MaxBrowne (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No one said "too difficult", only "not necessarily easy" and "can be difficult". No one said or implied that "chess, or board and card games in general, are an exception" to MOS. As far as a "note" at WP:CHESS to remind to use the MOS, I don't see the point since that's redundant, but harmless, and you should include from the MOS "where this can be done with clarity and precision". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please please please let someone else have a say. Don't care what you say to or about me, but this discussion is not about either of us. Please please back off. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I added my own contribution re the thread topic and your most recent post, I have no idea how you interpret that as suppression against other editors, or as personal about you, or my short post following yours requires need to "back off". (Even when I strain to see bases for your interpreting my post as you did, I can't.) You've been ingesting personal attacks and accusations and admonishments and insults at high rate in this thread that have been unnecessary and off-subject and unprompted and without basis each time, and, you've continued to do so. Perhaps I'm not the one who needs to "stop bludgeoning editors" and "back off"!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: - I'm still unclear as to why a separate chess rule makes sense. As I was saying above, I don't see any difference between chess use of pronouns in this regard and general use that's covered by the MOS. To introduce different guidelines that intend to supersede the MOS on matters that the MOS should apply to seems beyond the scope of a WikiProject's duties. Regardless, I think it's becoming clear based on the size of this discussion so far and what we have to show for it, that maybe it has run its course or needs to be reformulated in a fresh thread. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

At risk for being told again I'm "bullying", I'd just like to add I agree, and agree w/ the MOS too, and that IMO the MOS is referring to individual sentences on case-by-case bases when it says "where this can be done with clarity and precision", and that that is always judgment-call only editors can make, and if there are competing judgments then it's grist for the consensus mill. When gender-neutral boils down to evaluations of changes to individual sentences (context/meaning/clarity/precision), IMO there's no value contributed by abstract generalizations (e.g. "cop-out", "lacking imagination", "elementary", etc.) -- that contributes only useless and pointless friction. One thing IMO is fair to say from this thread is that it shows there are some editors having high enthusiasm for implementing gender-neutral, there's high potential for emotion surrounding same, and a tendency sometimes to try and grab for a formulamatic exceptionless methodology to apply to sentences having solo masculine pronoun (which IMO circumvents evaluation of any sentence on its own merits, leads to failure, and isn't consistent with what MOS currently says). And when high enthusiasm leads to methodology proposals that get rejected, that in turn can generate higher emotion, more unhelpful/useless friction, etc. (As exception to formulamatic methodology, however, IMO the pronoun "they", if it ever becomes acceptable as substitute for "his", is a formula that does work.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Forget I even raised the issue. Impossible to dicuss, let alone achieve concencus, when one person insists on dominating the discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tacky. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Full archive of TWIC

Available here: http://www.theweekinchess.com/html/

Can use this to fix any broken TWIC links; archiving is recommended as the URL for TWIC has changed several times already. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

God bless Mark Crowther. I emailed him before Christmas and he said he would try to correct the old broken links if he could find the time, but no longer had full control since the funding split with Chess & Bridge Ltd; effectively a lot of the pages had been misappropriated by them. Anyway, it seems he has asked them to hand them back and they have done so. What is super helpful is that he has also included the first two hundred or so pages of the archive, which from the earliest days were only available to buy on a DVD. I would urge everyone (who can afford it) to make a small donation to his Paypal account which is displayed on the TWIC homepage (and give him some Wiki-love). Brittle heaven (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Curt Justin Brasket

I've begun the above, but I'm not familiar with the sources you would use to find info on his chess career - can anyone here help? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he meets the notability criteria. Do you have sources that prove otherwise? Sasata (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few improvements to the article. Generally speaking FIDE Masters are not considered notable in the chess context unless they have achievements in other chess-related areas (e.g. writing, coaching, correspondence chess), so might have a hard time keeping this article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC).

Lahno or Lagno?

FIDE now spells her name Lagno. Which spelling does she use herself, and which spelling do chess publications like TWIC, chessbase, NIC, chessvibes etc use? Have any of them changed their editorial policy? The "g" spelling is more consistent with the Ukrainian, however the pronunciation is like a voiced version of the German "ch". A move may be appropriate if we can establish that the "g" spelling is now the most widely accepted. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If it helps any, I copied my comment from the Kateryna Lahno talk page to here --> You could wait to see if the majority of regular, reliable sources adopt her new name, but it seems extremely likely they will, now that it's on her FIDE card. Indeed, the English language Chessbase News has already made the switch, so I'd probably say go ahead. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Zurich Chess Challenge

One editor has just added a table of "Blitz results" to the ZCC article, and included blitz FIDE ratings in it. However, that editor also added classical rankings to that table. This should be fixed, I believe. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be laid out correctly now, unless I'm missing something Brittle heaven (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Pgnviewer demo

As a result of several discussions here ond on WP:VPT, i created "the full monty" demo page on test wikipedia here: [1].

The thing requires non-negligible real estate plot on the the page, so I do not believe it can be viewed as "chess diagram on steroids": the whole thing includes the board, some controls below the board, the algebraic game notation to the right, and the game details on the left.

The flip side of this coin is that the same lot on the page can be used to package many games, so a whole competition, or a whole round in a multi-player competition can be displayed by a single "pgn viewer".

The idea is to use it as a better ""Games" section, like, e.g., Pirc Defence#Sample games.

This demo took into account comments of several users - in round#1 I modified the controls and what they can do (for instance, I never thought that a "one step back" button is required - the functionality can be realized by clicking on the previous move in the algebraic notation display. I still do not think it's needed, but based on some users' comments, I added it anyway).
In round #2, I added better support for the editor to control what to display for users without Javascript enabled.

The technical details are discussed in the demo page linked above. I also imported some chess-related stuff to test wiki, like {{Chess diagram}}, so people who want to experiment with the template.

The ultimate goal of all this, of course, is to decide if we want this in enwiki.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, TheOriginalSoni: did you view the page on testwiki? do you have any comments? should i just stop bothering you about this? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

קיפודנחש (kipod) I have been terribly busy lately so I could not check this message earlier. I checked the page on testwiki and it appears to satisfy my most important criteria (Have some chess diagram displayed for non-JS users). I'll ping Edokter and TheDJ to see if anything needs to be changed before it can be used as a gadget/extension (Whichever is best suited) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea (even though I know nothing about chess). Though, if possible, I would like the lazy load to take place when the reader clicks a play button, much like the current media player. This could mean you wouldn't need code in Common.js. But someone else will ned to check; this script is a little too cmplex for my skills. — Edokter (talk) — 11:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Edokter: loading when the template is on the page is lazy enough. even without clicking "play", the script needs to run in order to display the initial board (the editor can select the position/move for this initial display), and in order to display the game list. it's lazy enough IMO - the minified script weighs all of 22 KB, and only loads if the "pgnviewer" template is present on the page, so for the vast majority of the pages on enwiki the cost is negligible.

TheOriginalSoni: just nitpicking: the template does not necessarily display a "chess diagram" for users with no JS - what it does is allow the editor to select any content (which *can* be a chess diagram or many chess diagrams, or anything else) to be displayed for readers without JS.

also, since "mobile" readers do not load the normal "common.js" and "common.css", we'll have to deal with them through "mobile.js" and "mobile.css" (the pgnviewer itself works beautifully on a mobile device, but we'll have to decide how to deal with it/ it's not so much a technical issue as a matter of decision). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Shogi

FYI a wikiproject for shogi has been proposed. See the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Shogi -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Head to Head records

Do we really need them? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In general? Why not, where that information can be reliably sourced and the level of play is notable enough? Or do you mean there should be stricter standards for when they're included? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like data hoarding to me. Likewise the lists showing a person's entire FIDE rating history. People can easily find such exhaustive information elsewhere on the net if they really want to. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is nothing wrong to have comprehensive information. Not every chess fan is able to find the correct personal game record between for example Carlsen and Kramnik. We have this information available. And in general, to say that any information can be easily found on the net is not quite correct, since in this case we have to remove all the information from the articles, as all this information is available on the net. In the end, the goal of an encyclopedia is to gather all important data together. MrsHudson (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I just worry about how properly researched and maintained these records are. Many casual editors will use something like chessgames.com, which is known to have many inaccuracies, not just missing games and tournaments, but also incorrect gamescores and results. I'd be happy enough with examples that are sourced to reliable books/magazines, where they comprise contests between deceased past masters and the book/magazine postdates the lifetimes of the players concerned. That would greatly reduce the risk of inaccuracy, but anyone viewing the latest head to head of Carlsen v Kramnik on a page here, would be very brave to trust it. I feel the same way about the tables that have started springing up recording the winners of super-tournaments - someone could go to update it and it's already been updated, or not bother, because they assume someone else already did it. There's no real quick and easy check that can be done to establish accuracy in either case. I suppose one way around the head to head issue might be to reference it to the database used and time that it was checked. That way, people could make their own mind up whether they trust the source and/or find the specified time period relevant. However, I'm sure such a system would just be abused. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Brittle heaven on every point. Generally we have no reliable way to source the sections on head-to-head records, and online games databases such as Chessgames.com are not reliable for this information. As Brittle heaven describes, we can sometimes cite sources for records of players who are retired. Quale (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We're kind of relying on fanboys to keep it up to date after every result if we're going to include such detailed data. What next, including the result of ever game they've ever played? WP:INDISCRIMINATE MaxBrowne (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree with Quale on the reliability of chessgames.com in such contexts, I would favour the removal of these lists from articles. Besides being selective (paying attention to some strong players while sidelining others), there is also the issue of when games where played. Some players faced other players when they were very young/old and not in their primes. As such, these stats are misleading. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I was joking but the fanboy IP at the Nakamura article is literally documenting his every game. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

We had a discussion on this talk page some time ago about whether chessgames.com is a WP:RS reliable source for lifetime records. I think that it is not, but Toccata and others disagree. I tried to find the relevant section in the archives so I could link it here, but I couldn't find it in a quick search. One other area of disagreement I have with Toccata is that I think that these records are appropriate in the articles on championship matches, as the press often reports the head-to-head records of the champion and challenger. That's a special case, however, as it avoids many problems of the general head-to-head records sections in player bios. For example, the head-to-head record before a match doesn't require constant updating. It is fixed in time so the reader can have more confidence that it was correct at the time of the match. Quale (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Noted chess historian Olympiu Urcan on Chess Café ( he is editor of the 'Past Pieces' column) recently wrote a scathing account of Chessgames.com, pointing out, with examples, the many flaws in the database. I think it is available behind a $0.99 paywall if anyone wants to read it. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any Wikipedian is really in a position to call people taking on the tedious duty of updating chess histories "fanboys" in a marginalizing kind of way, though. :) If someone wants to check Nakamura's FIDE records each month to update this information that doesn't strike me as such a bad thing. It's not all inclusive, of course, but perhaps reliable sources would be required for anything not reported by FIDE. Hard to call these games indiscriminate when each one of the matches and high-profile tournaments (those that would concern top players) is the subject of significant third party coverage. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Article in need of improvement

I've just come across the article 2014 European Individual Chess Championship. It contains almost no information and zero references. Help in improving the article is welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC).

FIDE laws of chess has a revision

Revised FIDE Laws of Chess effective 1 July 2014. Changes highlighted in yellow in this pdf. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Players will not be allowed to even bring a mobile phone to a playing area? Wow! Talk about making players' lives difficult. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Grace Alekhine edits

I don't know much about this topic, but one editor is claiming that the evidence that Grace Alekhine was Jewish is inconclusive. That statement, if nothing else, contradicts the article Alexander Alekhine. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you conclude in a contradiction. What is the specifics that contradict? Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The latter article says that she was Jewish, while the former says that it's a speculation. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree that the two need to tally. Having read Kasparov however, I can see it is more than speculation, so I have amended the wording to "have asserted that" (meaning declared true). I have also tightened the Kasparov citation with a page number and brief summary. Depending on what Winter says in the Alexander Alekhine citation - I haven't found it yet - it may just be a case of mirroring the Grace Alekhine wording, or stating something more positive and revising the Grace Alekhine article accordingly. I'll keep looking for the Winter comment, but I really wish editors would give Winter's paragraph numbers and page numbers in books - just needlessly vague. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

World Championship cycles

Currently the World Championship articles, e.g. World Chess Championship 1951 describe the entire cycle, rather than just the world championship match itself. In my opinion the qualification processes (i.e. zonals, interzonals, candidates tournaments/matches) should have separate articles. I'm going to start by writing an article on the 1948 Saltsjöbaden interzonal, including details of the rather chaotic selection process. The German wikipedia article looks like a good start. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I've written Interzonal tournament, Saltsjöbaden 1948. I based it on German wikipedia, Edward Winter, Mark Weeks and anonymous internet guy. Now I've just got to source the bloody thing properly. Help with copyediting and sourcing appreciated. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Rules of chess

They're rubbish. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Animated gifs and diagrams

I've been doing a little work to atomic chess and decided to add a couple diagrams. So far so good.

Given the radically different capturing mechanics it also seemed like a good idea to demonstrate via animation. So I made Image:Atomic capture.gif and added it to the page. Unfortunately, the off-wiki diagram creator I used looks different from those generated by Template:Chess diagram, raising stylistic red flags.

Question 1: Is there a chess diagram manual of style?

Question 2: Are there standard tools people use to create diagrams other than Template:Chess diagram? Thinking specifically of animations.

Question 3: What precedent is there for use of animated gifs? In general I know they have been used but most people urge displaying them sparingly (since it's distracting and can get messy).

I'm seeing bits of discussion on both of these taking place on several talk pages, so though I'd just come here to find out what's definitive. Apologies if answers are somewhere obvious and I just didn't see. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been away for a long time, but I can probably help with questions 2 and 3. I created the animated gifs for the Fool's mate and Evergreen Game pages. I still have the code (all written in Python, and somewhat Linux specific) that converts .pgn files to the animated gifs found in those entries. Be aware of WT:WikiProject_Chess/Archive_18#Animated_.gif_games, where I brought up the issue many moons ago. Winston365 (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You might also notice that the chess animations I am aware of (Scholar's mate and Immortal Game, in addition to the two mentioned above) are actually slightly different than the standard chess diagram templates. There is a one pixel wide grey border around the board, another one pixel wide border around the whole image, and a different font for the rank and file labels. The Immortal Game and Scholar's mate animations were already there when I wrote the program to make these things, and I decided to be consistent with them instead of with the static chess template style. I think I could easily get them to match up perfectly with the static chess templates if the inconsistency actually bothers anyone. Winston365 (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I made the animation for Bughouse chess a long time ago. As far as I remember, I used the wikipedia chess template to generate the different frames, and then an external program to merge them into an animated gif. For windows, there is the brilliantly simple [UnFreez http://www.whitsoftdev.com/unfreez/] Voorlandt (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately UnFreez doesn't seem to support any layering or transparency optimizations. Chess diagrams are ideal candidates for this because very little of the image actually changes between frames. Using a tool, such as ImageMagick, that is capable of doing this typically reduces the size of these images by more than a factor of 10, which is pretty significant. This is why the animation in Bughouse chess is over 700 KB for a 40 frame animation, while the Evergreen Game animation is only 36 KB for 49 frames. Unfortunately ImageMagick isn't particularly easy to use, especially if you aren't used to working from the command line, but it makes up for it by being extremely powerful. Winston365 (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Diemer-Duhm Gambit classification

Hi, does anyone have access to an actual paper ECO 5 volume set? It's more or less obsolete in the database era and the last edition was poorly received (just recycled informants) so not many people have it anymore but anyway... I'm wondering if it mentions the Diemer-Duhm Gambit, which can arise out of either the French Defence (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e4) or less commonly out of the Queen's Gambit (1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.e4). It could be classified under French Defence, ECO code C00 or Queen's Gambit Declined, ECO code D30. Does it have an "official" ECO classification or should we just say in the article that it could be classified under either code? There's also a similar Gambit in the Caro-Kann with 3.e4. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In edition 3 (1997), it's listed in a footnote in C01 (C00 is French lines without 2.d4). I also checked D30 (in edition 4, 2004) to confirm that it's not listed there. Sasata (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that we've got that sorted, perhaps we can get a consensus for deleting the Diemer-Duhm Gambit article and merging it with French Defence? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cobblet (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not worthy of it's own page - never heard of it, never seen it played. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I bypassed WP:PROD and just set up a redirect to French Defence, and gave it a passing mention (which is all it deserves) in that article. I also mentioned the semi-respectable Schlechter Variation (played by Carlsen in blitz) and the Alapin Gambit. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis

The following individuals who are in the scope of this project are showing to be alive on the English wiki, but deceased on another language wiki:

Nikola Karaklajić: br:Marvioù 2008 / pl:Zmarli w 2008 / ro:Decese în 2008 / ru:Умершие в 2008 году / sr:Умрли 2008.

Please help to find reliable sources to confirm if these individuals are alive or dead, or correct any mis-categorization on the relevant foreign-language article(s). Please see WP:LIVINGDEAD for more info and raise any issues on the talkpage. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a source. http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3609-in-memoriam-im-nikola-karaklajic

Our article on IM Karaklajić now shows him as deceased. Double sharp (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Chess At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Jens Ove Fries-Nielsen

Would he qualify as notable enough for an English wikipedia article? He's an IM, did well at the 1977, 1978 and 1979 world junior championships, played in several Danish Championships (best result 2nd in 1982), played for Denmark in a few olympiads. He just came to my attention after his recent upset win over Jan Timman in the Politiken cup (as I write he shares the lead with 4/4). Peak rating is about 2450 which is average IM, but he may qualify as notable for being one of the strongest Danish players during the 70s-90s. Polish wikipedia has an article, curiously Danish wikipedia doesn't. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Ove_Fries-Nielsen MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really, IMO. We are missing a number of Danish grandmasters (S. B. and L. B. Hansen, Lars Schandorff, Allan Rasmussen, Carsten Høi, Jens Kristiansen) with more notability than him (they've all won Danish championships at some point, for instance). Cobblet (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm arguing about Pokemon

Talk:Kasparov versus the World MaxBrowne (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon comes up occasionally here; search for it in the archives using the search box above for some entertaining examples. I was one of the offenders bringing it into the conversation, but there have been a few others as well. One of my favorite things written by a critic of our chess coverage on Wikipedia was the claim that StarCraft™ has as much or more printed literature than chess. (I don't find that in the WT:CHESS archives, but I think it was in an WP:AFD discussion.) Quale (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ishi Press = spam?

Should citing Ishi Press reissues be treated as spam? For example the Paul Keres article includes several references to Ishi Press reissues of Keres' books. Ishi Press has reissued dozens of old chess books, but the connection to all round dodgy guy Sam Sloan is troubling. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that any occurrence that appears to be blatant advertising (e.g. singing the praises of the publisher, linking to their website, or replacing earlier edition references with Ishi Press equivalents) ought to be reverted. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with the non-prolific citing of Ishi Press books. There will be many editors who only have access to the Ishi Press version, and so their numbered page citations will apply only to that specific volume - it is unlikely that page numbers would correspond with an earlier or original edition. Force majeure I think. Also, if you run a search on Ishi and/or Hardinge-Simpole (another of these resurrected title publishers) here on Wikipedia, you will see that there are already hundreds of instances of them being used in citations, so it would in any case be difficult to oppose this practice at this point. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox chess piece

Does this infobox have any use, anymore? It is up for deletion. —PC -XT + 08:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Scoring half points

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Use of frac template about whether we should use 4½/6 or 41⁄2/6 for scoring. Stepho talk 04:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

demo of showing games, playing them by a single keystroke from imported PGN

I attach the games of the World Chess Championship 2012. In the English wikipedia you had to write the games down, add diagrams and so on, on the Hebrew wikipedia there is a fantastic tool that was developped two years ago - have a look at the demo: HE:משתמש:Yoavd/chessdemo.

The tool was offered to you by the developper, a very dedicated wikipedian, but maybe you did not look at all the options.

I am interested in your view. You can scroll down all the games, then the fast games.

--Yoavd (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on Chess

Anyone want to take a stab at this? I'm no chess expert. Cannolis (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Florin Șerban (chess player)

Dear chess experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player, and should the page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not likely to be updated that often and thats about all I can find. CC players are difficult unless getting cross promotion to OTB chess and by their nature are pretty specialised so hard to prove notability. Jkmaskell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out, Jkmaskell. I presume from your comments that your opinion is that this draft should be let go. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. He appears to have the CC grandmaster title and as we generally allow any OTB grandmaster to have an article, this could be seen as equivalent in stature. We might also consider his qualification for the WC Finals as evidence that he is among the best of CC grandmasters. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The bar for notability should probably be higher for CC players. Even among chess players, CC specialists are generally not very well known. On its own, the ICCF Grandmaster title probably isn't enough to establish notability. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Flags in tournament crosstables

Most of our older articles on tournaments have them, but they are problematic, particularly in tournaments involving citizens of a certain country between 1933 and 1945. The choice of flag in these cases is inconsistent, sometimes just plain wrong, and has the potential to give offence.

Sonja Graf was clearly not a Nazi, but she was a citizen of Nazi Germany. In the Buenos Aires 1939 chess tournament article she is given the flag of the Weimar Republic, which wasn't in use at the time.

This crosstable puts the dreaded swastika next to the name of Efim Bogolyubov, who may or may not have had Nazi sympathies.

This crosstable uses the flag of the German Empire for Lasker and Bogolyubov, which is just plain wrong any way you look at it.

Simplest solution - just stop using flags in tournament crosstables. For Germany between 1933-45, just write "Germany" (rather than "Nazi Germany" as in this crosstable) for the country. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The horizontal tricolour was co-official with the Nazi flag from 1933 to 1935, so its usage in the Zürich 1934 article is not wrong. The usage of flags in tables of sporting results is pervasive and every flag is potentially offensive to somebody – this is an area where I feel WP:NOTCENSORED is justified. Cobblet (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"The usage of flags in tables of sporting results is pervasive and every flag is potentially offensive to somebody"... that's a bit disingenuous. Obviously the Nazi flag is a special case. Putting a Nazi flag next to someone's name kind of implies that the person is a Nazi, and would be particularly offensive in the case of Jewish citizens of Germany such as Lasker, Mieses, or outspoken anti-Nazis such as Sonja Graf. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous. Putting the flag of the Third Reich next to someone's name does not make them a Nazi any more than putting the flag of the Soviet Union next to the names of Korchnoi, Alburt or Bohatyrchuk makes them Communists. Putting a Turkish flag next to Mikhail Gurevich's name does not make him a Muslim or a denier of the Armenian genocide. But see MOS:SPORTFLAGS as I believe it may provide the guideline you're looking for. Cobblet (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne, please don't ~~waste your time and our time complaining~~ (I didn't intend to sound so hostile) that the flag is "offensive" to some people. That argument didn't work in the Images of Muhammad dispute. It didn't work regarding inclusion of an explicit video in the ejaculation article. It's not going to work here. If the flag is being used in a historically accurate manner then complaining that the flag offends some people isn't going to ~~fly~~ work.

I was going to raise the matter of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, but Cobblet beat me to it. Individual nationality flags do not belong in these tables. The only time the flags are appropriate is when competitors are officially representing a nation, such as in the Olympics. Trying to target this specific "offensive" flag icon isn't going to fly, but I would fully support a move to clean all the flags out of WikiProject_Chess tables. If WikiProject_Chess wants to take this up it should start at Top importance articles then High importance articles, with a general Project guideline for new tables and eventual cleanup of lower-importance old tables. Alsee (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to start tossing out things like "wasting our time". It is a reasonable concern, raised in a reasonable manner, and I think it deserves a slightly calmer response. Months ago other people had expressed concern about the probity of identifying Lasker with the hammer and sickle (he was for a time a Soviet citizen), so this is not a new complaint. I'm not sure what MOS:SPORTFLAGS indicates in this case. In modern times these aren't really individual nationalities, but national federations. Today all competitors in FIDE tournaments are registered with national federations, and a player's federation and his or her citizenship are not necessarily related. At some tournaments flags are present at the boards during play. Chess crosstables almost always include the player federation, except perhaps in cases such as national championships when all players will be from the same country. Maybe Max's suggestion would be a satisfactory answer: include the player federations in crosstables but use flags only for the world championship and national team tournaments and matches, including the Olympiads. To try to erase politics from some chess tournaments would be to attempt to rewrite history. For example, during WW II Germany arranged several tournaments expressly for Nazi propaganda, including Munich 1941 chess tournament, Salzburg 1942 chess tournament, and most notoriously Munich 1942. Quale (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking back, I see my "wasting time" comment came across as very hostile. I was trying to calmly but firmly explain it wasn't going to work, I was trying to direct things in a more viable direction. I like getting rid of junk flags in tables. It cuts down on nationalistic scorekeeping and conflict, when the focus should be on the individual's achievement. Alsee (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Hebrew wikipedia article on the unofficial 1936 Chess Olympiad in Munich avoids using the swastika, instead using the modern German flag (similar to that of the Weimar Republic). In this instance, it is historically inaccurate, since the German team were explicitly representing Nazi Germany. Obviously they're very touchy about "that flag" in Israel, so maybe we should be sensitive about its use on the English wikipedia too. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hebrew wikipedia can choose to do what it likes, but that has no effect here. Pretending that those weren't Nazi events doesn't make it so, any more than you can try to erase Nazism from the story of the 1936 Summer Olympics. Using the modern German flag for events organized for Nazi propaganda here is an absolute non-starter. Quale (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't suggesting using the modern German flag, just noting the high degree of sensitivity towards use of the Nazi flag. WP:NOTCENSORED says (paraphrasing) it's ok to include potentially offensive material (e.g. some rock album covers) if it adds value to the article. Flags in chess tournament crosstables don't really do that, the only possible exception being olympiads. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware that not every German citizen during that period was a Nazi or a Nazi supporter. However, the correct flag to represent thoser people is the German flag from that time - and I would even support putting it on names of any Righteous Among the Nations who happened to represent Germany during that time. I would make an exception for BLPs who make an explicit request otherwise, but that isn't the case with Nazi Germany. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED is irrelevant. The images of Mohammed were properly considered important to understanding the subject, not mere decorations. Similar for ejaculation, or the album, for both of which they were considered not just important, but essential. the flags used here are decorations. They do not elucidate the subject: the words do perfectly well without them. 17:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT CENSORED is entirely relevant if someone tries to target specific flags on the grounds that they consider them offensive. Where flags do exist they need to be accurate. But as I said it is entirely appropriate to engage in a general cleanup of tables that shouldn't have flags at all. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What Alsee said. Quale (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So to summarise... we have several people here (including an Israeli) who say that the correct flag for Germany 1935-45 is the Nazi flag, and that putting it alongside a person doesn't necessarily mean they are a Nazi. On the other hand, flags don't add any real information to an article and are primarily aesthetic, and can therefore be dispensed with. In the case of individual tournaments where players are really representing themselves rather than their countries I think we have consensus that flags can be removed. What about Olympiads? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

George Salmon edits

It will be clear to regular editors that the George Salmon page is often edited by unregistered users (probably the same person actually) as a joke. It was funny the first time but this is happening a lot and its a pain to undo each time. Would somebody please semi-protect this page to nip this in the bud. Jkmaskell (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I reported it at WP:AIV. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Proseline"

I'm curious as to how everyone feels about what is known as "proseline", with articles that are neither prose nor timeline. Many articles have each year as a section with prose detailing each tournament within them. The most prominent example of this is Magnus Carlsen where this was brought up on it's talk page to no firm conclusion. Of course there is no Wikipedia Policy on this, but it would be good to know what the general feeling is about developing articles in this respect. For myself, clearly I'm not keen on it, as it just seems to be a little lazy. Jkmaskell (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I would simply consider those articles to be in a transitional state. It's better to have this information reported in an infelicitous way than it is to lack it entirely, but over time editors may improve the presentation. In part it can be difficult to evaluate a career when the player is still in his prime, as it is difficult to gain perspective when the events are still very recent. Quale (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

List of Russian chess players

As I noted on my talk page discussion with User:Clemwang, there are many people on this list who probably would not be happy about being described as "Russian". That got me thinking, why do we even need this article? We already have Category:Russian chess players. Maybe the best solution is just to delete this article, and let people argue whether or not Category:Russian chess players is appropriate for individual players? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories and lists can be complementary, so it can make sense to have both. But listing every Soviet player as Russian is simply incorrect. Botvinnik, Smyslov, Spassky, and Karpov were Russian, but Keres, Tal, Bronstein and Petrosian were not. Having Jan Ehlvest on the list seems to me to simply be bizarre. "Russian" is complicated, since even before the Soviet Union the Russian Empire included many people who were not ethnically Russian. Originally the page said it "lists people from Russia who are primarily known as chess players", but in 2011 it was changed to "people from Russia, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Empire". I don't think that blanket inclusion of all Soviets is appropriate for a list with this title. Many chess players from the Russian Empire belong, but not all, and many Soviet players were not Russian and should not be included. The simplest solution might be your suggestion, to delete the list. If the list is kept, the non-Russian Soviets should be removed. Quale (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I found WP:CLN which indicates that there's nothing wrong in principle with having both categories and lists covering the same material. An Afd would probably be rejected on those grounds. However, there are many entries which don't belong on this list. How about we delete any entries that are not included in Category:Russian chess players? MaxBrowne (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Igor Smirnov (chess player)

This draft is awaiting review at WP:AfC and I am not familiar with your inclusion guidelines. My gut instinct is that it should be failed as a not notable person, or on a lack of sources, the history looks like a list of youth achievements with few as an adult. If anyone wants to leave some notes on the draft's talk page or take control that would be good. Rankersbo (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a conflict between wikipedia-wide interpretations of general notability guidelines and WikiProject Chess interpretations. Within WikiProject Chess, anyone who achieves the title of Grandmaster is generally assumed to be notable. Having said that, he's definitely in the lower tier of grandmasters and judging by his FIDE rating card he hasn't played since 2009. I'd like to accept the article (with improvements) but putting it up against the wider, non-chess wikipedia community might not get this result. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Iakov/Yakov Damsky

I think he qualifies for an article, not so much as a player (he was strong but not exceptional) but as a writer. He has an article on the Russian wikipedia. I'm just wondering whether he should be named as "Iakov Damsky" or "Yakov Damsky". "Yakov" would be the normal transliteration (Russian letter "Я") but for some reason "Iakov" has been used more frequently in English (here, for example). In the Mikhail Tal article both spellings are used, so we should probably decide on one or the other and stick with it. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)