Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Glossary focus[edit]

[1] I'd suggest that Glossary of chess not stray from FIDE chess. Glossary of chess problems is already not merged with the chess glossary, I'd suggest that fairy chess topics also not be. Currently there is no Glossary of fairy chess or Glossary of chess variants, perhaps one of those s/b opened!? (Of course there is some overlap, e.g. Chess960.) --IHTS (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and would suggest removing 'Chess960' and any other terms that aren't inter-compatible. It's going to be confusing to a novice, if some terms are completely at odds, like Chess960 and castling for instance. Of course, we understand that not all of 'regular chess' has to be played with a clock, or would necessarily feature a scoresheet or a Candidates Tournament, but they are still broadly compatible terms, and any mandatory, optional, or case specific considerations should be accommodated in the definitions. Going forward, it may help if our approach is more clearly explained/stated in the glossary intro, to make future editors aware of what will likely be deemed appropriate for inclusion. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well the intro already says This page explains commonly used terms in chess, not sure it isn't overkill trying to clarify as [game defined by] the laws of chess.
This discuss might be better at Talk:Glossary of chess, but there aren't many terms all told ...
My only two Qs would be:
  • Def 1 of tabia is about shatranj, but what about defs 2 & 3, should they also go?
  • Should royal powers be retained as a term in the chess glossary? (Seems to me "royal power" is sometimes used in chess contexts to refer to castling. Maybe ditto "royal powers".) It's also a term used in fairy, perhaps it can be moved to the chess problems glossary, but I dunno.
--IHTS (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, maybe the intro is reasonably okay as it stands. 'Tabia' I would keep, but maybe convert def 1 to a brief introduction (i.e. just acknowledging the Shatranj origins), then combine the two 'regular chess' defs into one. Could it be better phrased? How about 'a notable or theoretically important position that analysts might study, or that players may choose as an interesting start point in a friendly or themed tournament game'? Regarding 'Royal powers' - I'm suspicious - why would the Queen not be regarded as royal? And wouldn't you mention stalemate as well as checkmate? Not absolutely sure, but it reads like it's a bit home-cooked - I've certainly not seen it in any authoritative book in the context of 'regular chess' and struggle to see its worth, so I would probably scrub it here. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if "royal powers" is really a technical chess term, it's more of a figurative term some writers might use (and a trite one at that). MaxBrowne (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Regarding "cook", I'd prefer to retain the entry as is. Most chess players are at least casually interested in chess problems and studies and are probably familiar with the word "cook" even if they don't know what a Schiffman Defence is. It doesn't matter if there is a bit of overlap between the two glossaries. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, all done. And queen was already reflected in glossary as royal in entry royal piece. (I moved the fairy-only context add'l def to the chess problems glossary.) FYI, --IHTS (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Turns out "royal power(s)" is sourcable. I've updated royal piece/royal power. FYI, --IHTS (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting feedback[edit]

A while back, I tried to remove a completely unsourced section from Comparison of top chess players throughout history and surprisingly was reverted by an established user. Nobody ever joined the discussion on the talk page other than us two. I'd appreciate someone else to have a look. The section in dispute is here and the talk page discussion (reply there if you've anything to say) is here. Thanks. --SubSeven (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

How endgames would be affected by stalemated player forfeit his turn?[edit]

Two knights and a king can force checkmate a lone king in this rule. Do you know any other endgames can be affected by this alternative rule? --Ticgame (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Chess.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Chess, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible enhancement to infobox[edit]

Magnus Carlsen
Carlsen Magnus (30238051906).jpg
Carlsen at the 2016 Chess Olympiad
Full name Sven Magnus Øen Carlsen
Country Norway
Born (1990-11-30) 30 November 1990 (age 26)
Tønsberg, Vestfold, Norway
Title Grandmaster (2004)
World Champion 2013–present
FIDE rating 2822 (July 2017)
Peak rating 2882 (May 2014)
Ranking No. 1 (January 2017)
Peak ranking No. 1 (January 2010)
Career highlights and awards
TATA Steel winner (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016)
Bilbao Masters winner (2011, 2012, 2016)

Template:Infobox chess biography

Most sports infoboxes on Wikipedia (American football, basketball, etc.) have a full-fledged "Career highlights and awards" section that details the awards, tournaments, and championships they've won. The tennis infobox has a section for Grand Slam results, and the soccer infobox has an "Honours" section for the medals a player has won in international competition. The chess infobox, by comparison, is bare-bones and doesn't have room for any accomplishments other than "World Champion". Would it be feasible to add a similar

   | highlights=

attribute to the chess infobox that allows for this information? For example, the additional infobox section for Magnus Carlsen could include something like:

TATA Steel winner (2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016)
Bilbao Masters winner (2011, 2012, 2016)

etc, etc...

Or an infobox for Anand could include:

TATA Steel winner (1989, 1998, 2003, 2004, 2006)
Linares winner (1998, 2007, 2008)

etc, etc...

in addition to what is already there.

Right now, the 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent, and this could help with that. Thoughts? 11achitturi (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This does seem like a better approach than the closest thing we have currently (parameters for worldchampion, womensworldchampion, and ICCFworldchampion). A good idea before implementing would be to come to a consensus regarding what "highlights" should be included (i.e. it should be standardized). To illustrate what 11achitturi proposes, I've added an example above (it's just the usual infobox with an added parameter via child infobox). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, that example looks perfect. As far as standardization, I suppose something like the following:
  • World championships (can use F or C to differentiate between FIDE and lineal during the split-championship era)
  • World rapid/blitz championships (could limit to just the FIDE ones, or include non-FIDE ones like Herceg Novi in 1970, not sure what's the best option here).
  • Candidates' tournament wins
  • World Cup wins
  • Grand Chess Tour/FIDE Grand Prix wins (overall, not individual tournaments)
  • Chess Oscars or other "Player of the Year" awards
  • National championship wins
  • Number of "strong" chess tournament wins - using the same criteria List of strong chess tournaments uses.
  • Chess Olympiad individual medals (this could be another line, or separate entirely).
could be used as a template. I don't know if team wins should be included as well, or just individual ones. Others here can add ones I may have forgotten.11achitturi (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh great, another feature adding no new information for us to endlessly edit-war over. Cobblet (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of an infobox is to provide useful comparative data at-a-glance; they're not meant to add new info. Championships, awards, and achievements are very relevant for sportspersons and in my opinion a summary of them should be included for major chess players like they are for major players of all the other major sports. 11achitturi (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a very good idea. The categories look fine. The one that worries me a little is the number of supertournament wins. It's not exactly set in stone what makes a supertournament, and also, for some tournaments, there are joint winners. Does a joint win count the same as an outright win? Now, World Cup wins, Grand Chess Tour wins, etc., those are perfect, as there is one indisputable number. For career supertournament wins, that's a more fuzzy number.
This is what I would propose as an alternative. No running total of wins, that number could lead to headaches. Instead a 'major tournament wins' panel, similar to the 'Major Wins' one here [2] No supertournament vs. non super debate - if the tournament has a Wikipedia article, then it qualifies for inclusion. --SubSeven (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps not insurmountable, but it's going to get very messy - the European Individual is clearly a very strong tournament - it could be included, but like the Olympiad, they have medallists, not just a winner - include them all? Then the Americans might rightly expect the (equivalent) Pan-American contest to be included? What about the PCA world champions? New category for them? Undisputed world champions? We normally make a distinction for them. The GMA World Cup preceded the FIDE one. Separate category? The list goes on ... all the many, many world youth and junior champions for instance, they too are rewarded with medals, see Polish Wiki for long lists. There is also a difficulty in defining what is a major tournament, Would we be including 'Opens' as well as 'Closed/invitational' events? What if a tournament has good coverage in the chess press, but not yet an article here? - that would be a very long list - see an example edition of TWIC (The Week In Chess), but it would be hard to exclude non-articled tournaments with good sources and we might endlessly bicker over whether it was 'major' enough. Don't forget 'Opens', which can be super strong, don't have a FIDE category, so there is no easy 'major enough' yardstick. By the way, List of strong chess tournaments doesn't really have any precise criteria for inclusion. And wouldn't all of this be a disincentive to main article writers, if they are just replicating in words what is already listed at the side? Brittle heaven (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, you're getting into the unanswerable question of what is a major and what isn't, and I just told you the way to get around that, take it or leave it :) I don't think it would be necessary to futz around with medals outside of the Olympiad. --SubSeven (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I think there should be a distinction between region-specific tournaments like the European championship, the Asian championship, regional Interzonals and national championships, etc. that give qualifying spots for tournaments at a higher level, and the elite invite-only sponsored tournaments such as Wijk aan Zee, Linares, Dortmund, Sinquefield, Norway, etc. The former are generally run by FIDE or other regional chess associations, the latter by private sponsors. For example, in the above example Carlsen's Norwegian championship and Anand's Indian titles are apart from their wins at the sponsored tournaments. I also think that for now, tournaments with non-standard time controls shouldn't be included for the same reason the bio infobox currently only lists a player's standard FIDE rating. Junior/UnderX titles can be limited to the World Junior/Youth/Cadets championships run by FIDE, since even at that level there are only a few winners with Wikipedia pages.
The eternal question of what exactly constitutes a 'major' tournament will probably never be answered, in my humble opinion it shouldn't negate trying to expand the infobox. 11achitturi (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
How is a list of major tournaments "useful comparative data" when we've already admitted we don't even know what a major tournament is? "The 'accomplishments' pages for most top chess players are very haphazard and inconsistent" because the elite chess tournament circuit is very haphazard and inconsistent. Chess is (unfortunately) unlike other sports in that regard. And if User:SubSeven is suggesting that the NCAA Chess Championship or the Seychelles Chess Championship are major chess tournaments while the Bugojno chess tournaments or the Chess World Cup 1988 were not, I'll leave that suggestion rather than take it, thank you very much. Cobblet (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
A tournament series defunct for 30 years is your sticking point? Seriously? It seems like you're just trying to be argumentative. This is a pretty standard way to handle this kind of issue on Wikipedia. Accept that if a tournament has a properly sourced article, then it is notable, and that's your dividing line for inclusion. Then there is no protracted edit warring which you were concerned about. If the word 'major' bothers you, then a header like 'Notable tournament victories' works just as well. And is this your only objection to this idea overall? Initially, you made a very blanket statement that this infobox expansion would lead to edit wars and didn't clarify. I don't see how there would be much warring over a player's world championships, candidates wins, World Cup wins, etc. --SubSeven (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not accept for a second that "if a tournament has a properly sourced article, then it is notable, and that's your dividing line for inclusion." Yes, I'm trying to be argumentative – if people were not argumentative, there would be no edit wars. Having sensible rules would avoid such arguments; but your rule is not sensible. Let's take the example of Carlsen: by your rule, we would be including in the infobox not just the events listed above, but also Biel 2007 and 2011, Baku 2008, Pearl Spring 2009 and 2010, London 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2015, Sinquefield Cup 2013, Zurich 2014, Shamkir 2014 and 2015, Norway Chess Blitz 2014, 2016 and 2017, GRENKE 2015, Norway Chess 2016, Paris and Leuven 2017, and possibly also Corus-C 2004, Corus-B 2006, and maybe even the U11 Norwegian Championship in 2000. That would make for an absurdly long infobox.
IMO the only events clearly worth including in an infobox are wins in the latter stages of the world championship qualifying cycle, including Candidates tournaments, Candidates matches finals, Interzonals and World Cups; and the FIDE rapid and blitz world championships – in other words, only those events that would not lead to significant edit-warring (as you suggest, and I concur.) No "super-tournaments" (what is a super-tournament?), no national championships (is the Scottish championship a national championship? is the Faroese? why not continental championships?), no "honours" of any sort (be it the twice-defunct Chess Oscar or the bizarrely chosen World Chess Hall of Fame), no tournament series whose composition changes every year and might go extinct as soon as one key sponsor pulls the plug (GMA World Cup/PCA Super Classic/Grand Slam/Grand Chess Tour). Cobblet (talk) 05:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
As shown in the example I linked before, you would only need one line/bullet point for every tournament series, and indicate years won in parentheses. Also many of the ones you listed don't have their own article. Carlsen would have one bullet point each for Biel, Pearl Spring, London, Sinquefield, Zurich, Shamkir, GRENKE, and Norway Chess. That's not that excessive. And Carlsen is the edge case. Anyway, that's the objective way to do it, as opposed to any editor's take on what is worthy. --SubSeven (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand the concern re: so-called "major tournaments"; identifying them should not be taken lightly. It seems that world titles (in all three time controls) + candidates/interzonals and World Cups are not in dispute either. But why not include the national chess championships? They have clear-cut winners, are held annually, and follow an established set of rules. They are not at the mercy of a sponsor and there is one for each country (not including accompanying open tournaments).
If you wish, we should start with a list of possibilities and narrow down from there. My proposal (I believe this was SubSeven's idea as well) is that we limit the list to those included in the "Major recurring chess tournaments" (emphasis on the "Major present" section) and "Chess national championships" templates provided by Wikipedia. Which tournaments in the following lists do you, Brittle heaven, or Cobblet think should not be included? 11achitturi (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────All of them. The world championships and their associated events are the only ones sanctioned by the official governing body of the sport: they are the only ones whose significance is largely not in doubt (Classical/FIDE split notwithstanding). Everything else is subjective – you're already showing a recentist bias yourself. Also, every one of the assumptions you've made about the national championships is wrong. Cobblet (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Went away for a while, seems the discussion has stalled. For now, seems like people generally agree that the following accomplishments are eligible to be in an expanded infobox:
  • World Championships
  • World Rapid & Blitz Championships
  • Candidates' tournaments, Interzonals, strictly FIDE-affiliated wins that would not lead to edit-warring.
For now, what is the next step to take and how would this be implemented? Rhododendrites constructed a child infobox as an example, but eventually the main infobox would also have to be changed? Or would an entirely new infobox need to be created? Any chance of progression on this? 11achitturi (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)