Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:CHESS)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess
Shortcut: WP:CHESS
Navigation Menu
Chess Portal

Skip to: Bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics

Someone else please deal with the POV-pushing edit warrior[edit]

I'm already on 3R so I could get in trouble if I engage any further. Defining chess as a "sport" in the opening sentence of the main chess article is clear POV pushing. I've tried to explain on the talk page but he just keeps reverting. Defining chess as a "mind sport" as another editor wants isn't much better - this is not a familiar term to the average reader. The article was fine just how it was, defining it as a "board game" in the opening sentence and noting that the IOC recognizes it as a sport a bit later on. This fairly reflects the prominence of the "chess is a sport" argument.

You wouldn't go to the Shogi article and expect to read "Shogi is a Japanese sport" or even "Shogi is a Japanese mind sport" in the opening paragraph, but Shogi is highly organized and has serious competitions, just as chess does. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I set things right again, for the moment, but I encourage other chess editors to keep an eye on this. The arguments in favor of changing the lede are utterly stupid, but unfortunately having to deal with stupid arguments is part of the joy of contributing to Wikipedia. Quale (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Chess diagram[edit]

I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I removed the PROD to generate a discussion but I'm not really sure there's much to say about the topic. Maybe a description and illustration of chess fonts, like the old fashioned ornate font used by British publishers like Bell until the 60s, the Batsford-style font from the 60s-90s, and the modern fonts? Can't find much material on this topic on line either. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It can't be any worse than chess box. You could talk about chess fonts; but one could also dig deeper into history – I wonder what illustrations of chess positions in the old Arab or European manuscripts looked like. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Chess box was listed as top importance - I changed it to bottom importance. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
1497 chess diagram: MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Diagrams are a function of Chess fonts, which is really a huge & fascinating topic. I'm guessing that unfortunately there aren't any published WP:RSs on same. (A hobby of mine, I've contacted British and German printing houses. The true forms of several beautiful fonts were lost when printing methodologies changed from hard-type to digital [in the 1980s!?]. The original engineering artworks weren't accessed by new-book printers/publishers for the digitizations, that's why after a certain point we see only approximated versions in all books & magazines [that aren't photo image-plate reprints].) IHTS (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Réti Opening, King's Indian Attack[edit]

This is a new article created by User:Dino for the sequence 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3. The implication of the title is that there's a variation of the Réti Opening which is known as the King's Indian Attack. If one defines the Réti as simply the move 1.Nf3, then this is not unreasonable, but we still shouldn't have separate articles on the KIA and the "KIA variation of the Réti". It also remains common to reserve the term "Réti" for systems involving a quick c2-c4 hitting a pawn on d5, and the KIA for systems that do without this move (if an early central break is played it's usually e2-e4). Under this convention, the Réti and KIA are different openings – one is not a variation of the other. I thought this was already explained in our articles on the two terms as well as in Zukertort Opening. I suggest redirecting this article to King's Indian Attack. Cobblet (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


I too wondered of the similarity. But kept finding Internet references to the "Réti Opening, King's Indian Attack," plus a few books about it, as [1].

dino (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That is the very picture of an unreliable source. Please seek advice from more experienced editors if this subject area isn't your strong suit. Cobblet (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Leonid Gofshtein died?[edit]

Yochanan Afek has apparently reported the death of Zvulon Gofshtein on Facebook. I'm looking for an official source for the information but can't find one. Maybe someone who can read Hebrew will have better luck? Cobblet (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried googling

זבולון גופשטיין שחמט

("Zvulon Gofshein chess"). Got some hits on the Netanya Chess club etc but nothing about his death yet. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Here's a source. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"US Chess" branding vs. "USCF"[edit]

Could use a third party to weigh in at Talk:United States Chess Federation#"US Chess". I'm at 3RR. IP seems intent to edit war over the matter and hasn't yet used the talk page. It's possible I'm in the wrong here, but I don't think a common acronym should be dispatched with universally because an organization decides it's changing its marketing strategy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Troitsky vs Troitzky[edit]

I've started a thread at Talk:Alexey Troitsky#Troitsky vs Troitzky in the article that project members may be interested in given the amount of attention that went into /Archive 31#Proposed changes to the Troitzky line article. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

proposal about alekhine-capablanca rematch controversy[edit]

There is a widely debated topic on chess history, it is not clear whether it is based on facts or rumours/speculations. the topic is: "Alekhine-Capablanca world championship rematch." Some believe Alekhine avoided Capablanca and some believe contrary, ALekhine gave him a chance but Capa did not use it. can wikipedia enlighten all of us on this matter? p.s: I am not good at wikipedia, I cant add references and e.t.c. --Sir artur (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Good sourcing is critical for issues such as this. Edward Winter is my go-to for chess history, but even better is to look at the original sources he refers to, e.g. contemporary newspapers and chess magazines. Some writers (e.g. Reuben Fine) are known to be unreliable on historical matters. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Chess player[edit]

This article looks totally redundant to me. It started out as a redirect, then became a DAB page, then somehow it became an article. It has no coherent theme and there is nothing in the article that isn't covered better elsewhere in wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)