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
talk
talk
talk
talk
Chess Portal


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

Mark Taimanov death[edit]

Mark Taimanov has died and it's been nominated for the 'in the news', one problem is the Mark_Taimanov#Chess_career section is unreferenced. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

gender watch[edit]

I and I'm sure millions of others have been linked into a lot of articles on various chess positions and terminology this past month, and at least half of those used male pronouns by default as early as the lead, e.g. in Giuoco Piano: "Black aims to free his game by exchanging pieces..., or to hold his center pawn at e5." ⟨Del my family anecdote here as I shouldn't have had it in the first place – it was late.⟩ You know, I think chess might actually have a historically entrenched systematic male bias.... Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead. I cross-posted this on the GGTF also. SamuelRiv (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I know there was a fairly strong debate about this earlier in the year and I see your point. Wikipedia points to MOS:GNL. It's something that a lot of us do by default, very much without thinking so please don't take too much offence at it. Feel free to edit them out as appropriate and thanks for bringing it up here. Jkmaskell (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
While singular they is increasingly acceptable it still tends to draw unnecessary attention to its gender-neutrality, like "chairperson", so I prefer to write around it. Even when it gets clumsy I prefer to avoid third person singular pronouns altogether. Not ideal but it's the best we've got until the English language has a universally accepted non-gendered third person singular pronoun. I wonder what sort of debates they're having with other euro languages where grammatical gender does not equate with biological sex, e.g. in German Fräulein is grammatically neuter? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This is long overdue for an RfC. The most recent substantial discussion on the subject that I can recall took place here: Talk:Losing chess#pronouns.
I use gender neutral pronouns in everyday language and on Wikipedia. In most places it's easy enough, but in some contexts there's a technical precision that's necessary, and the best course is unclear. So, for example, explaining the rules of a two-player game in which the various singular/plural pronouns can stand in for one player's side, piece, position, opening, strategy, clock, etc., the other player's same, or both players' combined. There are ways to minimize confusion through careful writing, but it's difficult to achieve when intentionally using a plural as a singular.
I have an easy time imagining someone, new to chess and whose first language is not English (or even just one of these factors), coming to the Giuoco Piano article and reading "Black aims to free their game by exchanging pieces" as "Black aims to free [the game being played by the two players] by exchanging pieces".
To some extent that's the case across all articles, but when the goal is to be precise, as with technical writing/explanation of rules, then the precedent for future editors of an article should be set to more, rather than less precise standards. After all, MOS:GNL does say "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision".
So I find the singular they problematic in some technical senses. I don't have a problem with the "he or she" formulations, but other people feel strongly that they're ugly/unwieldy. The other option is to either use "it" ("Black aims to free its game by exchanging pieces" seems just as clear as "his" -- we could just imagine computers playing the game [or another ungendered entity]) or work around "the player"/"white"/"black" (though "Black aims to free black's game by exchanging pieces" is pretty unpalatable).
So, again, there needs to be an RfC. I would strongly urge anyone inclined to do so to create a drafting space and get feedback before starting it, though, as the scope, terms, language, etc. all have the potential to railroad any actual results for what is always a fraught subject. At first I was thinking the easiest scope might just be "technical writing regarding two-player games", but I don't know if there are problematic examples that would throw a wrench into that. So maybe the scope should just be chess and chess-related games? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, using "his" or "its" for both sides can run into bad confusion too when describing moves – I've definitely had to make clarifying edits on that before. An RfC is hardly necessary since the proposed solutions (including "do nothing") all have the same caveat: write carefully and re-read for ambiguity before posting. In addressing this, your solution will likely end up avoiding pronouns altogether – think 4 moves ahead.
Now, with that caveat in mind, let me address pronoun concerns again. Yes, "Black"/"White" is compatible with "it" as well as "he", so that's an option, but let me remind (or inform) everyone that the singular they has been uncontroversially popular in English for hundreds of years until the prescriptivist grammarians of the 18th and 19th centuries gave us a veritable Coliseum of misappropriated Latin "rules" we still can't get elementary school teachers to escape from. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you using a preposition to end a sentence with? MaxBrowne (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
It takes some work, but in my experience it is possible to avoid using he/his, they/their or it/its and still write about chess moves in a way that isn't clunky or confusing. See these edits to the Modern Benoni article which I made in response the last time we had this discussion. Cobblet (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Am reading your article starting from the end. First stop: "And if White carries out his original intention with 8.Nc4 0-0 9.Bf4, Black can either defend the pawn with 9...Ne8 or sacrifice it with 9...Na6 or 9...b6." Get to work. ;) IHTS (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Cobblet (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Next stop: "Black's half-open e-file grants him a certain degree of influence over the kingside." Back to work. ;) IHTS (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That was easier to fix. Cobblet (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
But notice you had to change the sentence meaning slightly (by removing sense of ownership of the half-open file). (Half-open files are owned by one or the other players. Your first crack at the text retained that traditional meaning. Your "fix" subtracted it.) IHTS (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that Black is explicitly mentioned three words later, I don't think there's any confusion who owns the half-open e-file. Cobblet (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you misinterpreted my point. (I didn't say the owner of the half-open file can't be figured out from context, that that loss of meaning from the sentence can't be compensated for by deduction. I'm saying there was a slight loss of meaning along with the "fix". [There might be assumption in the gender-neutral discussions, that there's no price to pay after efforts to re-phrase. And that once the gender pronoun is eliminated, all good was kept and some bad was eliminated. Not true. There is often a sneaky price to pay. And the enthusiasm re "fixing" language tends to want to overlook same. For me I see it as a sacrifice of sorts, and the obvious Q is: "Is the sacrifice worth it?" When the sacrifice is unrecognized or ignored, that Q never comes up. Ostrich time.]) IHTS (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I understood you, but for me all that matters is whether the revised sentence still conveys the desired meaning – I don't care if it isn't semantically identical to the original. You don't need to convince me of the disadvantages of strictly adhering to gender-neutral language – there's no question carrying this burden makes it harder to write well, especially when I'm also not a fan of the singular they. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I know that it can be done, and that it can be hard. My own bias is that "natural" writing (not consciously re-efforted writing for artificial purpose of dodging use of a verboten word), contains the best/most complete/most contexual info (similar to data loss if audio/video file is copied to a different format). The point of hardness is especially pertinent too, since I doubt the average WP editor is up to it. (And so, thereoccurs editors substituting blindly many times "his or her" or "their", then getting up in arms if there's contention or revert to obstruct their noble endeavor. Then sides divide and others join and discussion [pissing war] is revisited.) I think it's correct what Maxbrowne said re the word we need doesn't exist in English language. It's not an isolated phenomenon, there are other lacunas in English. (So we have a blind spot in the language, whatta we do [that all editors can do, easily]? Why not just use "she/her/hers"? [Who will complain then, the men!?]) IHTS (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC question: Should we nominate Cobblet to competently copyedit all of the chess articles to use standard gender neutral language? support :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm flattered (really!), but I have to admit I don't usually bother with this sort of thing because it feels like putting lipstick on a pig. For example, the sentence about the Giuoco Piano that began this entire discussion is factually wrong in just about every way – it should've been deleted, not rewritten. Cobblet (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
"Long-story short, keep eyes open on chess articles for the whole default-player-is-male thing, especially in the lead." First, I don't read masculine pronoun "he" to mean "default player is male" as you do, no matter MOS says about "he". (Like millions of other players, I read it as a generic, not a gender pointer.) And, I doubt very much that encouraging editors to create inconsistency between lead and body is consistent at all w/ numerous WP dictums harking to maintain consistency within a single article. (Your edits to Giuoco Piano did just that, created inconsistency between lead and body. I think that only adds confusion for readers, where confusion did not exist before. [Thus, how can be considered 'improvement'?] Editing a lead is easier than editing a full article, and can be more fun too. But that is the wrong fountain to drink from.) IHTS (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
move to end for date and side-topic: IHTS: "'Natural' writing...contains the best/most complete/most contexual info"??? To find "natural writing" one only need look to 6-year-olds or the 17th century: "uglyer", "goodest", "naycheur". I know, learning to write "unnaturally", what with complete sentences and stuff (Almost all spoken language does not use complete sentences – listen to a conversation sometime.), is hard and takes effort, but since you're a fan of the rules of previous centuries' grammarians, maybe it's time to upgrade to the latest release version from prescriptivist linguists: either alternate "he/she/one" throughout your work or use singular "they". SamuelRiv (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Not a fan of what you shove in my mouth. By "natural" I meant how the typical WP:CHESS editor writes w/o re-thinking or conscious re-efforting to dodge a word. (And when that happens there're occurrences of generic "he/his", as you've already noticed in so many chess articles. Here's example of first-effort hard-to-improve easy-to-disimprove sentence, over which there has already been extensive discussion & drama: "A player wins by losing all his pieces, or being stalemated." Simple, clear, precise.) IHTS (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that in that entire discussion nobody seems to have suggested either "Players win by losing all their own pieces" or "One wins by losing all of one's pieces". Cobblet (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually not quite clear – the placement of the comma allows the possible interpretation of "... losing all his pieces, ⟨the term for which is⟩ being stalemated." Since you're obviously talking about a very unusual and esoteric chess variant, this is a reasonable late-night reading. You can avoid this by making it "... or by being ...", but the point (among others) is that our work will never be perfect in expression and monosemy, not in English nor in any other language (no, not even lojban). I'm not trying to shove words in your mouth, but rather to explain that what writing you say is "typical" or "natural" for an editor is a learned behavior, and in the case of gender defaults one that this generation's schooling and current academic writing will soon find a bit quaint, like when grandparents talk about bees having knees.
I'm also trying to lord my relative linguistics experience over you and encourage you to either take this up to MOS Talk or somewhere higher, but using better arguments, or accept consensus (as one does on WP with not pushing conspiracy theories and using IPA transcription).

In my opinion, "he" is the best pronoun for indicating an example player of unknown gender. Why?

  • 1. "He" indicates that the player is a singular human, rather than a computer or multiple humans (as in a consultation game or as in referring to both players). This information is not communicated by "their" or "it".
  • 2. Most professional chess players are men. Thus, most games of exemplar quality are and were played by men.
  • 3. Most club-attending chess amateurs are (probably) men. So the majority of people who would be playing chess of even a moderately high, say 2000 Elo level are men. We should write to reflect this, as if we were writing about other fields which are mostly male such as Go or mining.
  • 4. I don't have the data to back this up, but it seems to me that Engish chess literature usually uses "he" to refer to an unidentified player. There's no harm in keeping Wikipedia similar to the established format of chess literature.
  • 5. "He" is used as a default pronoun in many other fields. There is no good reason to diverge Wikipedia's style from this.
  • 6. Wikipedia (probably) already uses "he" in most of its references to unidentified chess players. There is no good reason to waste time copyediting it away.
  • 7. "He" probably feels more natural to a lot of chess writers and readers than "she" or, worse, remembering to alternate "he" and "she" in a roughly 50% ratio. "s/he", "(s)he", "he/she", "she/he", "he or she", and "she or he" are impractical due to being ugly and too lengthy. Rare pronoun use (I'm especially thinking of "they") could distract readers from the subject matter and from picturing the chessboard state (if that is what they're doing).

I will probably use "he" as a default pronoun if I write about opening theory or any other writing about a theoretical unidentified player on Wikipedia. --51.7.50.239 (talkcontribs) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

An experienced WP editor, one of whose focuses is grammar, today applied singular feminine pronoun her to article Malefiz. (Same as my suggestion above. For sure it's not the first time has been done in WP article; just the first time I've ever seen it.) Please read that article (it's short) to see how seamless, unobjectionable, clear & simple the result is! IHTS (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi all—I'm the editor responsible for the re-write of Malefiz mentioned by IHTS, so I'm just dropping in without having given proper attention to the above conversation. This is only my own personal approach, but it's brief and easy, so I'll share it.
  1. Avoid gender pronouns when possible. I'll usually opt for "the starting player" or "the pawn's owner" when I can. (I'm not opposed to the singular 'they' in principal, but it can be confusing in technical writing.)
  2. Alternate between male and female pronouns when you have lots of distinct examples in one place. This shouldn't be done in compare/contrast situations, and it shouldn't ping-pong back and forth if it's distracting. (It can work with the classic Alice-and-Bob coöperative situations, but those don't arise in chess.)
  3. If the above two guidelines don't apply, literally flip a coin (real or virtual) to assign gender. I know you chess folk aren't big fans of randomness in your games, but I can't oversell the purity of this method to ensure fairness in writing without having worry about which gender you chose yesterday or what other editors wrote in a different section.
Cheers to all. —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I was going to open a discussion about gender-neutral language here but I saw that there's already a section here - I'm an old editor returning in the last couple of days and I's since edited a couple of chess-related pages to make it easier to read in terms of WP:GNL as I found the language was a bit clunky with male pronouns only. I've since had those edits reverted, so I was wondering what the general consensus was regarding gender-neutral pronouns? I didn't think it would be super contentious but the reasoning for the reversions have not been very informative (eg. reason "poor, even confusing") and I'd like to resolve the issue without heightening tensions too much. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Bishop (chess) but I've also had an edit on Outline of chess reverted. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Your "solution" to "being in line w/ GNL" has been to blindly substitute "he or her"/"his or hers" for "he"/"his". (Is that any way to write? Make blind substitutions? I don't think so. [E.g., in one of the reverts, "he" fairly referred to Jan Timman, as White.]) IHTS (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I did actually go through the article and attempted to substitute gender-neutral language in areas where it was relevant. For example, in Outline of chess, I changed instances of "he" to "he or she" where it was referring to players in general rather than specific male players and in good faith. I did not attempt to do this blindly. In one of my edits which you have raised here specifically, my main focus was actually on rewording a paragraph and adding a paragraph break to it for readibility (see Smothered mate#Introduction), one my edits in that was incorrect and I don't mind your reversion as it's fair. I just thought I'd check here whether it's better to use 'his or her' or 'their' as a gender-neutral term more generally on chess articles, I apologise if there's anything I've said or edited that's offensive/personal to you and I appeciate your input. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
From my end your edits looked/look like blind substitutions. Doing blind substitutions "in good faith" is still no way to edit, and you seem to defend doing it. Others have their views, re mine, "her" is superior to "their", "their" is superior to "his or her"; but there is no consensus re "their" (and btw, I don't for one share the assumption that "he" in chess articles is counter-GNL, or defective, or needs improvement, or even that it can be improved; perhaps any change to that generic pronoun in chess articles is a net disimprovement). You seem to be looking for guidance/rule that will empower you to continue to make blind substitutions. IHTS (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I accept that I'm looking for some sort of guidance in cases where it's not possible to avoid player pronouns altogether, as from what I can gather Wikipedia has moved to using 'his or her' or 'their' rather than generic male and I feel like it affects quality of reading when there are inconsistent pronouns across chess articles. I am genuinely attempting to have a discussion more generally so that I can understand what is acceptable language to use so that I am able to edit chess articles without stepping on toes and having all my edits reverted. I am also very happy to defend my edits, but my main focus has been actively trying to work collaboratively with you and other editors and thought that this WikiProject was a good place to go. In comparison, so far you have described my edits as "crappy writing" (Chess opening revision history), "blind" (see above) and "poor" (Bishop (chess)). I'm doing my best to be friendly and civil, and I've accepted your suggestion on Talk:Bishop (chess) to change it to 'their' instead of my suggested 'his or her'. I'm not sure what exactly you're hoping I will do. What if we reword sentences where possible to avoid using player pronouns? Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to have absorbed the significant discussions above and at other Talks. And I think what you are looking for (a guarantee your editing won't be reverted when eliminating masculine pronouns on sight), doesn't exist. And there was nothing personal till now, my editsums were re blind substitutions using the mechanical "his or her", you seem to want to make this a civility issue now which it isn't. (p.s. I try never "to hope", so have no hope "what [you] will do".) And I see no evidence you've read the suggested Talk discussions. I have no more to say, except I'm left wondering if you really have an interest in chess & chess articles, or more in pushing language correctness in articles as a social advancement thing propelled by the power of MoS which doesn't take into account that masculine pronoun use in the relevant literature is strictly generic. Good luck. IHTS (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis[edit]

Hi WT:CHESS. I came across Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis while cleaning up a citation in Garry Kasparov. The article had been deleted in March 2009 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis , but was re-created in April 2013. I've looked at the sources cited in the article and they are appear to be trivial mentions per WP:ORGDEPTH, so at first glance the club does not seem satisfy WP:NORG. Does this WikiProject have some specific notability guidelines for chess clubs? Should the article be brought back to AfD or tagged per WP:G4? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Chess Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

zh:麒麟 (日本將棋) and Kirin (chess).[edit]

Should we interwiki them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticgame (talkcontribs) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cobblet (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Come to think of it, we also need to interwiki zh:鳳凰 (日本將棋) and Phoenix (chess). Double sharp (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK! Cobblet (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

chessgraphs.com[edit]

Useful or spam? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems useful to me. Cobblet (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Spam to me. I also don't like the fact that the user put these links above 365chess.com, cg.com etc. Sophia91 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean, are we just chatting about the site, or are you asking whether it's acceptable for someone to link-bomb the encyclopedia with this site. If the latter, I assure you that "useful" has nothing to do with it... Let's have a look at WP:ELYES. #1 is not applicable. #2 is not applicable. #3 says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject...." Can anyone honestly make an argument that comparing a [random GM]'s rating chart to [another GM]'s rating chart is actually essential to an encyclopedic knowledge of that GM, and not an utterly trivial thing to do? --SubSeven (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Feels spammy to me. chessbase and chess24 produce monthly analysis of ratings lists. Below that level, comparing to other players isn't that important. Agree over the handling of this by shoving it into dozens of articles, though I recognise that the user was ignorant of how things should be done here. Given their enthusiasm about adding them, is there a possible conflict of interest? Jkmaskell (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree the comparison function is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. But is there any other site that allows you to graphically view the complete (i.e. 1971–present) rating history of a player? Like where else would I be able to find a graph like this for Lawrence Day? That graph and table satisfies WP:ELYES, does it not? Cobblet (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I invited him to join this discussion, he just went back to link-bombing articles about chess players. This isn't good. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the editor's history, every edit the person has made has been to add in the site chessgraphs.com. I'd say spammy to me. LionMans Account (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The site is intriguing. FIDE's website has its own rating graphs. However, they only go back to 2000. So I enjoyed reviewing the progress of my own rating between 1980 and 2000 on the chessgraphs.com site. I assume they made a deal with FIDE to get easy and up-to-date access to their whole rating DB.
I agree with Jkmaskell that there is more than a whiff of COI. It would be one thing if one of you were writing a biographical article and wanted to include a chessgraphs.com link. It would be kind of like adding a link to their FIDE card (emphasize "kind of" -- chessgraphs.com doesn't have that "official" ring to it like fide.com does). But it's another thing to see someone trying to do it in bulk. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Julio Sadorra[edit]

I've just created Julio Sadorra. Plenty of news sources, but I am too busy to invest all my time into developing the article. Could anyone help me out? CatcherStorm talk 17:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

He is the highest ranked player of the country and I do recall the name, though vaguely, perhaps through bulletins of the Olympiads. Rebounding back towards 2600 territory. I'll do my thing. Jkmaskell (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Ellipsis is normal I think...[edit]

...when discussing Black moves, even if they are being discussed in terms of overall strategy without reference to specific move numbers. For example, in the chapter on the Giuoco Piano, MCO has "One can learn from the opening theory when/if to play ...a6 as Black". The chapter on the Ruy Lopez has "The white bishop can sometimes be more exposed on b5 than on a4, where it retreats after ...a6" and there are no doubt other examples. Are there counter examples of books which omit the ellipsis when discussing Black moves? MaxBrowne (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Only poorly edited ones. Cobblet (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Had added ellipses to lots of articles years ago, now thinking those edits were perhaps editing overkill ("Black" as mover is mentioned in same sentences in nearly every case). I see now books do the same redundant ellipses, so have reverted per Quale's undos. FYI. --IHTS (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to start a fight over it, and I'm comfortable doing whatever the Wikipedia chess editors agree on. My opinion is omitting the ellipses can be confusing sometimes, and it's easier for the reader if we explicitly mark the moves by Black. Doing the same thing always is also a simpler rule than trying to decide in each specific case whether it's completely clear in context that Black is making the move, and avoids disputes over whether they are needed in particular instances. IHTS made some other improvements to some of the articles when he was trying out the articles with some elipses removed; I hope I didn't lose any of those improvements when I reverted. Quale (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes the redundancy is double and perhaps makes more difficult to read, compare (current text, French Defense):

The flank attack ...c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g7–g5.

to:

The flank attack c7–c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play f7–f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing g7–g5.

Plus another possibility:

The flank attack ...c5 is usually insufficient to achieve this, so Black will often play ...f6. If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f4, then Black has two common ideas. Black may strike directly at the f-pawn by playing ...g5.

--IHTS (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The third of these is the style adopted by MCO. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I try to always use long notation for pawn moves to distinguish them from square labels ("If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f4"). Cobblet (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be mixing two different notation systems within one article (short notation & long notation)? (Clear to us, but to new player-readers who expect short form in WP articles [if that indeed is the WP:CHESS consensus standard] ?) To that extent, an expression like Nf3-d2-c4 is long notation while Nf3–d2–c4 (MOS:NDASH "ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through") is still short notation. --IHTS (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't tell me our readers can handle dashes but not hyphens, and that mixing varieties of English spelling presents no confusion but the occasional long-notated chess move does. I prefer to solve real problems, not imaginary ones. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not really "occasional" in your Modern Benoni, it's frequent. If I put myself in shoes of someone learning short notation for purpose of reading WP articles, then coming across long form, I think it could be confusing. It is at least inconsistent. I do not try to solve any problem here, accepted long ago that consensus discussions re WP:CHESS notation conventions are totally futile and a waste of time, so do not lecture me. I did not open this section, someone else did. I added examples for simple info including alternative views on topic, and don't deserve your insults here or in editsum. --IHTS (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think long notation is pretty self-explanatory; I certainly don't remember having problems when I first saw it used without explanation. What else might "f7–f5" mean, for example? I would think that Cobblet's decision in favour of clarity over consistency ("If White supports the pawn on e5 by playing f2–f4") is a little better. If you use long notation, I think you don't need to write "...a7–a6" with the ellipsis because White cannot possibly play that move, because he would be moving a pawn backward; it must be a Black move and "a7–a6" is clear enough. You would only need the ellipsis with short notation like "...a6". So I would think the second of MaxBrowne's examples strikes a happy medium between clarity and space. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ruifeng Li[edit]

I have just created Ruifeng Li, one of the youngest chess grandmasters. Rating is near 2600, plenty of refs found with a google search. Needs improvement. CatcherStorm talk 14:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox and the sources seem to suggest he is only an IM, not yet a GM.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
His GM title application will be considered by FIDE next month. Cobblet (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Albert Sandrin Jr.[edit]

I created Albert Sandrin Jr. about a year ago, but didn't know about this project talk page, and about other useful places to put references to that article. Enjoy! Bruce leverett (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

{{Chess_in_China}}[edit]

China is just an exmaple. What is the meaning of inactive and former? OK, inactive is currently not on list because of no games played. But former? Isn't a title for life, or does it really mean dead? -Koppapa (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it means they changed federations (to Singapore for Zhang Zhong, Qatar for Zhu Chen). Cobblet (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Then it should say "changed federations." "Former" is ambiguous.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)