Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 26 January 2014

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chess and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:CHESS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chess and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 28 January 2013.

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

On our other favourite bug-a-boos

p.s. This issue has been a bug-a-boo. (p.s. There are many others, too, but let's not talk about them in this context, because the thread will get too long and it will give everyone a headache. For example, when do we capitalize 'Grandmaster', and when don't we? And is it 'Nimzo–Indian' or 'Nimzo-Indian' ? And does everyone agree we should use one notation in articles , and that "Black's push b7–b5" is consistent w/ that, but "b7-b5" is longhand notation and therefore introducing a second & different notation into the same article which is not the best way? And how about a final deal on '0-0-0' (vs) 'O-O-O'? And ditto for +5 −3 =2 (vs) +5 =2 −3. Ditto ½ (vs) .5 And how about picking one or two from 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v' instead of using all of 'em? And ... .) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that project-wide conventions should be established for such situations. Cobblet (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer ½ instead of .5 because (1) the result is either a whole point or has a half point. (You can't score 5.3.) And (2) few people speak that way, e.g. people rarely say "he scored seven point five points"; more likely they say "he scored seven and a half points". In the body of the article, I prefer "versus" (a period looks like the end of a sentence). In a diagram I prefer "vs.". I don't like a hyphen between the names of the two competitors because it can be confused with a hyphenated name - see an edit to wrong bishop within the last few days. Bubba73 22:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re ½ (vs) .5, I agree obviously and there was a decent discussion on options here, I just think that convention oughta be added to the other edit conventions spelled out on the WP:CHESS project page. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re 'versus / vs. / v. / vs / v', I agree "vs." is best, but IMO use of "versus" ought to be reserved for text intended for reading, e.g. "The top board would again feature man versus machine." In section names (TOCs) I don't like "versus" spelled out, that suggests reading text for meaning, when only a game identification is the purpose. (So either "–" or "vs." when referencing a game. Ditto for article names, where I'd prefer "vs.". I'm not sure about dispensing with "–", however, since so many sources use that, e.g. ECOs, Hooper/Whyld, etc.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

See the confusion at wrong bishop that was corrected 2 or 3 days ago. The source (BCE) says "Guretzky-Cornitz", and it looks just like "Euwe-Fine". Someone (it could have been me) thought that it was Guretzky vs. Cornitz when it is actually a hyphenated name. Bubba73 02:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was your blooper , but, I'm not sure that seldom-occurring confusion s/b the basis for editing convention (maybe it should!?). Reading is king: what the Project wants readers to see/read (no matter how confusing for editors to get there). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to think of the readers rather than the editors. I think it is clearer to read "versus" or "vs." than the hyphen, since the hyphen sometimes indicates a hyphenated name. And some readers won't know that the hyphen usually means "versus". Bubba73 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso brought up seven issues to discuss. My opinion is that we should first try to follow WP:MOS as much as possible, and if it doesn't offer us any guidance, examine common practice in the chess literature. I haven't read any of the previous discussion I assume we've had on these issues (although I've noticed the monster in the closet, Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation) and if my thoughts conflict with the general consensus please point them out. But these are my views anyway on the less complex issues (the algebraic notation discussion is tricky and I don't want to start it):

If there won't be discussion and consensus to put into WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white', then the kind of passion around '0-0-0 (vs) O-O-O', as shown by an earlier thread, along with commensurate reverts & re-reverts at articles based on personal preference, will just have a basis to continue indefinitely. Also there s/b one chess notation, not two, in an article. "Black will reroute his knight Nc6–b8–d7" clearly invokes MOS:NDASH where the endash translates to "to". (That example is no different in kind to the earlier example "Black will push his pawn b7–b5.") I don't see any active discussion yet, so there cannot be any new WP:CHESS conventions set without consensus, and limited participation means no consensus. Last, the view that these convention issues don't matter as long as each article is internally consistent, I think is faulty for at least three reasons (probably more) if you think about it. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess titles

I believe chess titles should be treated in exactly the way we treat other titles such as "Doctor". Capitalize them only when used as an honorific and use lower case in all other situations: "The book was reviewed by International Master John Watson", but "The book was reviewed by the American international master John Watson", or "He beat Grandmasters Adianto and Paragua" but "He beat two grandmasters". And just as one does not usually write out "Miss" or "Mister", titles should be abbreviated when used as a honorific (IM, GMs in the previous examples). Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of self-constructions that make solutions look all-too-easy to apply (same as the 'White/white' issue), we should look at how these are actually used in articles. In articles there are countless uses of Grandmaster/grandmaster preceeded by a country identification, like this: "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen." And there are countless uses in chess BLPs beginning like this: "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster." Back in February I asked talented WP writer-editor Khazar2 for his input, it's in his Talk Archive 7, so I'll copy/paste that dialogue here:

When should "Grandmaster" be cap'd, and when shouldn't it? ("A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian Grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich", vs. "A brilliant move by the Yugoslavian grandmaster Svetozar Gligorich"; "I want to introduce you folks to Grandmaster Nakamura" vs. "... to grandmaster Nakamura"; "After success in qualifying matches x, y, z, so_and_so was awarded the FIDE title of Grandmaster"; "There were several grandmasters attending the Mainz Open", etc. (It seems to me s/ be cap'd when referring specifically to the title itself, or used as title appended before a name, but otherwise, lower-case. Is that right?!) Thank u! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not 100% sure about this, but a quick Google check suggests that the New York Times and BBC don't capitalize it in any instance: I would follow their lead until someone points out a specific Misplaced Pages MOS guideline that demands otherwise. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the usage I suggested is consistent with the usage you suggested to Khazar2, and that usage is also consistent with all but one of the search results Khazar2 found, so I wouldn't be so bold as to call it my own invention. I doubt in this case we'll find uniform consistency within the literature either (am I right in surmising from the entry on Michael Adams that the Oxford Companion always capitalizes titles without exception?), which is why I'm suggesting a method that is exactly analogous to other conventions surrounding honorifics and capitalization in English. If we've got military ranks listed on the table at the end of MOS:ABBR, I think it would be logical to add chess titles there as well.

Let me turn the question around: why should this Wikiproject adopt a standard on chess titles that's different from the convention applied to any other honorific in English? Cobblet (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess WP:JOBTITLE also applies here. If I read it correctly it suggests that we would write "Grandmaster Carlsen" but "Magnus Carlsen is a Norwegian grandmaster", which seems right to me. I don't think grandmaster should always be capitalized, but never capitalizing it might lead to irregularities especially when compared to lesser titles. Some such as FIDE Master and Candidate Master look odd when not capitalized (FIDE master and candidate master), and International Master, Woman International Master, and Woman Grandmaster are potentially ambiguous and confusing when not in caps. If we wrote "Irina Krush is a woman grandmaster", would our readers interpret that as Krush is a WGM or would they read it as saying that GM Krush is a woman? Probably it would be best to avoid those potentially ambiguous constructions and use a different wording. Quale (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:JOBTITLE expresses exactly what I mean to say regarding capitalization. Thanks for pointing it out. I agree that the potentially ambiguous constructions you mentioned are to be avoided. Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Although being a grandmaster is not really an occupation, I think WP:JOBTITLE is the closest analogy we have, so I agree with the others above me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the same considerations apply to "World Champion" or "Russian Champion", where we might write "World Champion Anand" and "Anand is world champion", etc. Quale (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So what about these (very common article) examples then?:

From the Bobby Fischer article (I'm wondering if absense/presence of definite article "the" is impacting):

1. "Fischer was next scheduled to play against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen."
2. "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board this youth, .'"
3. " Fischer was set to play against Soviet grandmaster and concert pianist Mark Taimanov in the quarter-finals."
4. "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman calls Fischer's victory 'the story of a lonely hero .'"
5. " Fischer stayed for extended periods in the San Francisco-area home of a friend, the Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas."
6. "He resided in the same compound as the Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre, ."
7. "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević called Fischer, 'A man without frontiers. '"
8. "The U.S. grandmaster Robert Byrne labeled the phenomenon 'Fischer-fear'."

The "the" makes all the difference, as you suspected: capitalize 1, 3, 4 and 7. Replace "grandmaster" with "king" or "president" and ask yourself if you would capitalize the latter two words in the same position. I should comment though that there is no reason to refer to someone's nationality or chess title if neither has any direct relevance to the text: you don't expect an article on Stephen Hawking's career, for example, to refer to all the people around him as "Dr. Roger Penrose", "Mr. Robert Graves", "the English professor Fred Hoyle", "his Indian student Dr. Jayant Narlikar", etc. That Taimanov was a concert pianist is particularly irrelevant to his quarterfinal match against Fischer. Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of good writing whether the national qualifiers like "Danish", or "concertmaster" should or shouldn't be appended is really a side issue and discussion of same only serves to take us off topic (i.e. when to cap or not cap Grandmaster/grandmaster). (BTW as long as you have brought up the poor writing of including those qualifiers, I now have to say that I as editor did not add any of those qualifiers in any of the examples listed. Neither did I add "concertmaster". But again, talking about it takes us off point.) I agree with all of your prescriptions above (that 1, 3, 4, and 7 s/b cap; 2, 5, 6, and 8 s/b lower-case). However, I have two Qs on my mind about these examples ... Q1) Does everyone see and agree then, that as far as cap vs. lower-case goes, we essentially have a critical difference between the following two sentences? "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board .'", and, "Soviet Grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board .'"? Q2) We've agreed what is correct is "The Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board .'" OK. But let's modify the sentence a bit. How? By using "GM" instead. So we have: "The Soviet GM Yuri Averbakh observed, 'In the struggle at the board .'" Is there anything wrong with that sentence? I presume there isn't. And is "GM" in that sentence "honorific". I presume it is. So if "GM" is honorific in that sentence, how could substitution of the word GM represents, suddenly make the substituted word not honorific (and therefore demand lower-case)?! (And I guess this raises a question too, you mentioned earlier if I remember, you felt "Grandmaster" and "grandmaster" s/ not be spelled out in articles and "GM" s/b used instead. Have you dropped that position? ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on second thought I realized abbreviations like "GM" would likely be unfamiliar to the general reader so I'm no longer convinced it's a good idea. I brought up the needlessness of mentioning titles because I agree that it would look strange if a page was full of capitalized titles like "Grandmaster": my point is that this should not be an issue because the titles themselves should be used sparingly. Cobblet (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's great. But what about my Q1 & Q2? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And what about this one, it isn't "honorific" use, but makes direct reference to the title as a title:

1. " he finished tied for third with Borislav Ivkov, half a point behind tournament winners Ludek Pachman and Miguel Najdorf; this confirmed his status as a grandmaster."

And in many article introductions this pattern:

1. "Levon Grigori Aronian is an Armenian chess Grandmaster."

And these (are indefinite article "a" and definite article "the" impacting?):

1. "Garry Kimovich Kasparov is a Russian (formerly Soviet) chess grandmaster, a former World Chess Champion, writer ."
2. "Robert James "Bobby" Fischer was an American chess grandmaster and the eleventh World Chess Champion."

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No capitalization in the last four examples. In the last two examples "world chess champion" also should not be capitalized. Sorry, that's not right: in the third case "a former world chess champion" is correct because "world chess champion" is a common noun (it refers to world chess champions in general) but in the last case "World Chess Champion" is correct because it is a proper noun (it refers only to Fischer). Cobblet (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This is confusing. Why does the Kasparov example have to be interpreted as a common noun? WP:JOBTITLE says: When the correct formal title is treated as a proper noun (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France ). So, presumably this is okay: "Louis XVI was a former King of France ". And if that is okay, then why isn't this okay: "Garry Kasparov is a former World Chess Champion"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't correct to write "Louis XVI was a former King of France" to express the meaning "Louis XVI was a former French king". I'll answer why this is so on your talk page tomorrow, but right now I need sleep. Cobblet (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I need sleep too. I can see you're probably right. (Poor Kasparov ... He'll have "former world chess champion" in his article lead, while Fischer will have "eleventh World Chess Champion" in his. I agree this seems correct though.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right. It seems to me (correct me if I'm not right) you are using a simple guideline: "Cap 'Grandmaster' and 'World Champion' only if they are used honorifically, and honorific use occurs only when immediately in front of a person's name, as that person's title." But what about cases where the title is being referred to as a title, e.g., "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of Grandmaster." (The other alternative would be: "FIDE bestows to qualified candidates the title of grandmaster.") Ditto "World Champion". (Are you with me?) We need a more comprehensive guide than simply "honorific, appended before a name". (It is easy enough to construct simple cases as Quale did above, and think they explain a convention comprehensively, when they don't. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

In which of the previous four cases do you think capitalization of "grandmaster" and "world chess champion" should occur? Cobblet (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, can we have logical order to this discussion, if we will have one? Do you or don't you grant that "Grandmaster" might be rightly capitalized when referring to the title as a title, in the example I've given? (Your questions are out of context, and I cannot answer them, without knowing your answers to my good-faith Qs above. This is not a contest of wits, or tricks or traps. If there's something illogical about my line of reasoning then just point it out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. Since you've dropped idea of using "GM" in place of the spelled out words, I presume using "GM" would also be an alternative editors could use, since it can simply be wiki-linked to the same article "Grandmaster" is wiki-linked to. So therefore it is not wrong to introduce question how GM compares with it substituted value "Grandmaster" or "grandmaster", and when substituted, where is the consistency re honorific or not. (I suppose by asking these questions I'm a trouble-maker who deserves to be blocked!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I was only asking because I wanted to understand exactly what it was that you were confused over. I think my answers are consistent with WP:JOBTITLES, which everyone seems satisfied with as the guideline to use in this case. I don't want to clutter up this page with a two-person conversation, so I'll answer your previous questions in depth on your talk page. Cobblet (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example of "Grandmaster" being referred to as a title (there are many more), from article Raymond Keene:

• "In 1976 he became the second Englishman, following Tony Miles, to be awarded the Grandmaster title."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Decapitalize. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another from article Tony Miles:

• "He learned the game of chess early in life and made good progress nationally, taking the titles of British under-14 Champion and under-21 Champion in 1968 and 1971, respectively."
  • Capitalize "Under" as well, I think. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) From Grandmaster (chess) (first two lead sentences):

• "The title Grandmaster is awarded to chess players by the world chess organization FIDE. Apart from World Champion, Grandmaster is the highest title a chess player can attain." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The capitalization is all correct here. Cobblet (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes in opening names

WP:NDASH is quite clear on when to use en dashes. In cases where the two words are independent elements and the meaning of the punctuation is "and", an en dash is indicated: Smith–Morra Gambit, Caro–Kann Defence, Richter–Veresov Attack (which means we need to move Richter-Veresov Attack and Vienna Game, Frankenstein-Dracula Variation). When this is not the case, a hyphen is used: Semi-Slav Defence, Nimzo-Indian Defence (short for Nimzowitsch's Indian Defence—"Nimzowitsch's" modifies "Indian" so the two are not independent), Neo-Grünfeld. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source that "Nimzo-Indian" is short for "Nimzowitsch's Indian"? Why couldn't that name equally be a combination of two terms "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence"? I really think you show a pattern, here and elsewhere, to make your own substitution choices, and then draw conclusions from them. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I distinctly recall having said somewhere that "these are my views", and I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. No, I can't find a source that explicitly says that, but I have evidence that that is what the phrase was intended to mean when it was first invented. But let me point out one other thing first:

1. With words that are not player names, the term "Indian Defence" is never used to form a compound in the way you describe. The term "Caro–Kann Defence" means "Caro and Kann's Defence", or equivalently, "the defence attributed to Caro and Kann". But the term "Old Indian Defence" does not mean "the defence attributed to Old and Indian", which makes no sense; instead, the meaning here is "the old variation of the Indian Defence". "Old" and "Indian" are not independent elements: the latter is part of "Indian Defence", which the former modifies. This is even more obvious in the case of "King's Indian Defence" and "Queen's Indian Defence".
2. Edward Winter shows in item 3712 that the idea of blending the words Nimzowitsch and Indian first occurred in German: "Nimzoindisch" first appeared in print in 1931, while the first use of "Nimzo-Indian" dates to 1935 according to the OED. Back then, the Indian ("Indisch") was thought of as a single opening (and not a group of openings, as it is now), and when 3...Bb4 was first mentioned in print it was called ‘La “Variante de Nimzowitch”’ in French, not "La Défense de Nimzowitsch". Kmoch's quote in German in the last sentence of Winter's article also refers to it as a variation. This implies that when the German "Nimzoindisch" and the English "Nimzo-Indian" were coined, it was unlikely to have been meant as an amalgamation of "Nimzowitsch Defence" and "Indian Defence", as you suggested (which would be strange, since the former is the totally unrelated 1.e4 Nc6), but as a contraction of "Nimzowitsch's variation of the Indian Defence". That the unhyphenated blend "Nimzoindian" occasionally occurs in the older English literature (e.g. item 7677) is further evidence that the English and German terms are linguistically related. Cobblet (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking "Nimzowitch" might refer to 1.e4 Nc6, rather some line of his in the QP opening. Anyway you've convinced me, thx for all that research. (I also found this at MOS:NDASH but don't know if it applies: Wrong: Franco–British rivalry; "Franco" is a combining form, not independent; use a hyphen: Franco-British rivalry.) Anyway I need to access a tool to do mass changes to undo all the damage I've done mistenly thinking Nimzo–Indian was correct. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

W/L/D records

I couldn't find any convention on Misplaced Pages for this, but I note that Template:Infobox boxer lists draws after wins and losses, and most articles on boxers seem to follow this convention in text and in headings. I haven't seen examples of them using the (+5 –2 =3) notation though. Checking the literature, Kasparov in My Great Predecessors (Everyman) seems to consistently list losses before draws (although he's the only person I've seen who doesn't use spaces—I take it we prefer to). It's surprisingly difficult to find examples of this notation in other books—I found one instance in Sanakoev's World Champion at the Third Attempt (Gambit 1999, p. 59) where it's losses before draws and one in Palliser's The Modern Benoni Revealed (Batsford 2005, p. 26) where it's draws before losses. That's three different conventions in three books by different publishers—not very helpful. But it does seem that listing losses before draws is a bit more common, both on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere. I suggest we stick to that. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I agree. The proposal is to actually add it to WP:CHESS conventions along with 'White/white' so there is a basis for keeping articles consistent over different editors' personal preferences. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that's what we're aiming for. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like putting draws after losses. A draw is a result between a win and a loss, so the logical place for draws should be the middle, at least if using an abbreviated format instead of writing it out with words. Looking a bit wider than just chess, I think sports league tables in Europe tend to use a win-draw-loss format, while those in America use win-loss-draw. (Compare for example tables for football in England with those in in America). Not a very big issue though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a "gray scale chart". A reader reading for meaning or pertinent information is interested in wins & losses, not draws. (Draws don't determine how a player did in a match. In addition there are matches where drawns don't count for anything, only wins, so in those cases drawns can be considered to not even exist and so have zero relevance. So on that basis putting the irrelevant draw count between the relevant win and relevant loss figures ends up unhelpful and even distracting and obscuring the pertinent information for a reader wanting quickly to ascertain the match result. The more important informations should appear first. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to emphasize the solidity of players such as Schlechter, Petrosian and Leko, the draw count may well be more interesting than the number of losses. It's a matter of personal opinion (you like using this argument, so I'll use it too!) which you think is more important. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

After all the talk about draws being the death of chess in the last decades, you argue that draw counts might be more interesting to some readers? Based on their interest in certain players' styles? OK that accounts for like 1% or less of readers, so we should set a convention based on that argument? And it isn't my opinion, it's Bobby Fischer's. (His advocacy for matches where drawns don't count. To make chess matches interesting again, and to give spectators what they are paying for.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact that it is very difficult to find instances of this notation even within specialist chess literature (you can try yourself as I did) suggests that the average reader is unlikely to understand what it means. I agree with the notion that Misplaced Pages pages should be made as accessible to the average reader as possible, and while writing about chess moves without using algebraic notation is virtually impossible, I think it's a bad idea to place an additional burden on readers by expecting them to know that "+" not only means "check" but also "win" in this case; that "−" means "loss"; and that "=" means "draw". Is it really so difficult to just write out the words? As for the order, whether written out or not, in view of Sjakkalle's point I'm going to go back on my previous opinion and suggest that either is acceptable as long as consistency is maintained within an article. Cobblet (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The +=- notation is used in the Oxford Companion, which is a specialist encyclopedia on chess. I am probably guilty of using the shorthand notation myself (due to laziness), but I agree with you that writing out the result in words is probably best for a general purpose encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the logic that using two different WLD orders is fine as long as consistent within an article. (Based on that logic, then what objection would there be allowing descriptive notation in addition to algebraic notation as long as the notation choice is consistent within an article? On what basis do you contend consistent across all articles is desirable for notation, but not for WLD records?) I also disagree with the the view (+ − =) or (+ = −) are too specialized for chess articles and should be replaced with words. We don't replace # with word "mate" or "checkmate". And we don't spell out "draw" to replace ½–½, or spell out "White wins" to replace 1–0. Is there really a solid distinction that permits accepting symbols for applications in one set of circumstance, but not another, other than personal preference? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Because to allow the use of descriptive notation would only place an additional burden on both readers without a chess background and readers with a chess background who were born after the last book in descriptive notation was published. (I'd be surprised if one such book has been published in the last thirty years.) It is absolutely reasonable to agree on one system on notation for Misplaced Pages. If you feel equally strongly about standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses when written out in words as you do about standardizing algebraic notation, I will point out that the former is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. YMMV.

That there is a difference in the prevalence between the +/-/= notation and symbols such as # or 1-0 is most clearly illustrated in Algebraic notation (chess), where the last two symbols are explained but the former notation is not. And I challenge you to find one example of a discussion of algebraic notation where the +/-/= notation is explained. (Is it even explained at all in the Oxford Companion? It isn't in the entry on "standard notation".) I'll also point out that symbols such as # and ½ are prescribed in the FIDE Handbook, while the +/-/= notation is not mentioned anywhere, as far as I can tell. Cobblet (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

standardizing the order of wins/draws/losses is then a guideline not on notation but on sentence structure, and I wonder if we are being unnecessarily prescriptive. No. It is simply in the interest of seeing consistency across chess articles. (Look in The Oxford Companion -- Hooper/Whyld use one order in all their encyclopedia entries that express WLD. If they used two orders scattered randomly through their book, that would have been unprofessional and messy, so they didn't do that. Ditto Encyclopedia Britannica if they are worth their salt. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion (Fischer was talking about match formats, not notation) is no more relevant to this discussion than the personal opinions of Sjakkalle and myself. I don't care very much about the issue of ordering draws and losses, and neither Sjakkalle nor anyone else seem to, so if you want a convention, we can have one. The real issue is whether we should be using the +/-/= notation at all: Sjakkalle and I have both expressed reservations about it. How do you feel about it now? Cobblet (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I care more about that there is consistency re order (WLD OR WDL), just like The Oxford Companion has consistency re order and not a messy mix of orders throughout their encyclopedia, than whether the order is WLD or WDL. But an editor gave an argument "a draw is between a win and a loss so therefore it is logical that it should be in the middle" and I didn't want that to go unchallenged since I think wins & losses are more relevant to what readers are probably seeking and therefore we should give them that rather than making it more difficult to pick out. But I am fine with WDL order since Hooper/Whyld picked that order for their book. As far as spelling out the words instead of (+ − =), I prefer the compactness of the symbols, as the match record is just to give data, and introducing words suggests it's readable-for-meaning text akin to specifying "versus" were only "vs." is necessary in indentifying a game. As food for thought, the symbol definitions could be put in an article akin to Chess punctuation; or that article could be renamed and expanded; or the symbol definitions could be put in the Glossary of chess; or a template could be written something like {{WLD|5|2|3}} to produce (+5 −2 =3). (I kinda like that idea actually, for e.g. applying it on the first occurrence of WLD in an article to give indication how to interpret the symbols and so repeat underlining doesn't make a blight for the article. I also agree w/ Quale that the symbols are so intuitive that Hooper/Whyld probably figured they didn't need explanation, so again a single use of the proposed WLD template seems to me to be the right balance. ) Again these are just ideas, I'm willing to accept words instead of symbols if there is Proj consensus for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Cobblet is right that the +W−L=D notation is not explained very often anywhere, although that might also suggest that it is thought to be pretty easy to understand even without explanation. I think writing 5 wins, 4 loses and 7 draws, and the like repeatedly in an article might be pretty tedious to read. It might just be me, but I can read +5 −4 =7 much more quickly than the expanded text. I am sympathetic to the concern that the notation isn't understandable to the general reader, so if the project decides that we should write it out I am fine with that. As long as wins come first, the WLD or WDL order is consistent within an article and a minus sign is used instead of a hyphen, I don't care whether the order is consistent across the entire project. If we decide we should standardize on the order, I will respect it. Quale (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The template was at least a cute idea, but it makes me think: articles on players of other individual sports like tennis and boxing get nicely formatted tables at the end summarizing their tournament and match records. Why not for chess? At a stroke we'd eliminate the need for such a notation and the articles would look a lot cleaner as well. Cobblet (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notating draws

Definitely 8½ and not 8.5, since this is the convention used in every book I checked, and it also applies to game results: ½–½, not 0.5–0.5. (And use en dashes for game and match results, per NDASH.) Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and per this discussion at Talk:Boris Spassky, where also I brought up MoS accessability issue with ½. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely ½-½ over 0.5-0.5 for notating draws. No real preference when it comes to scores such as 8½ or 8.5. Perhaps the fraction notation is a trifle clearer, but I see decimals used e.g. on results tables, including the MSA area of the USCF website. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably easier for them not to have to use special symbols when inputting large amounts of data, but Misplaced Pages doesn't appear to have this problem. Cobblet (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've thought that it's sometimes easier to get the numbers to align in a pleasing column in a crosstable if decimals are used, although that generally requires using .0 on some of the results. There is some ugliness in that as well, so probably it isn't a big concern and using the fractional notation would be as good or better. But I agree that 8.5 is never good in running text (it falsely suggests that 8.6 is a possible score), and 0.5−0.5 is an abomination. Quale (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Versus v. vs v vs.

Per MOS:ABBR, the only correct abbreviation of versus is vs., except in legal contexts, where v. is used. But in game scores I strongly prefer using an en dash with no spaces rather than "vs." or a hyphen, per WP:NDASH: G. Kasparov–A. Karpov. Guretzky-Cornitz is fairly easy to distinguish from Guretzky–Cornitz, at least to my eyes. Virtually all print sources use either a hyphen or a dash, although the spacing differs from publisher to publisher. The reader who doesn't understand that a dash represents a game between two people is not likely to understand algebraic notation in the first place. Cobblet (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've always found talking in general about conventions such as these unhelpful and misleading, since the devil is always in the details. For e.g., if you prefer endash on game scores, does that extend to section titles and article names? (Should Deep Blue versus Kasparov, 1996, Game 1 be instead Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1? Or Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, 1996, Game 1?) For me as already mentioned, I think "versus" in TOCs and article names is less good than "vs." or "–", since "versus" works best when reading for meaning whereas "vs." or "–" serve simply to identify a game. (So for e.g. the nine games identified in the TOC in article Draw by agreement are better off IMO as "vs." or "–" for easier visual access to that TOC info.) An article name like Queen and pawn versus queen endgame isn't identifying a game, but still might benefit from "vs." instead of "versus" to make the title less "narrative" and more normal recognition by players: Queen and pawn vs. queen endgame. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What are conventions if they are not general? You can rest assured that I always try to say exactly what I mean, and if I don't say something, it's usually because I don't mean to say it. The only case where I support going against the convention I proposed (and this applies to everything I say) is when common parlance overwhelmingly favours the alternative, such as in Kasparov versus the World, which was promoted by MSN and the media as such. So yes, I prefer Deep Blue–Kasparov, 1996, Game 1, unless popular usage for Game 1 itself (I agree that Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov is what the match is usually called) dictates otherwise. There are cases in other fields where the en dash is used in titles: Lincoln–Douglas debates and Roman–Syrian War are two examples I got from the MoS. Cobblet (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What are conventions if they are not general? You misunderstand me. (Yes, the end result of an editing convention development discussion is or s/b a generally stated principle/rule/instruction, but that is the product of said discussion and I've seldom seen it helpful starting development discussions by immediately jumping to proposed solutions. Just because we say "hey, we are lacking an editing convention for xx" doesn't itself enumerate all the problems or examples we'd want a good convention to address. So jumping ahead of that to a "solution" can just cause a backwards-moving discussion if/when an inherent weakness is found in the proposed solution in the form of inherent exceptions it didn't take into account. If you want to see another vivid illustration of what I mean, go see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Use of gender-neutral terms. (Some editors were all satisfied with generalities, "Hey, what's the problem? Just make it gener-neutral like the Mos says. Easy as pie." Well, ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am being sincere when I say that these are my own opinions, and I am prepared to discuss and welcome discussion on anything I've said. I apologize that the issue with the algebraic notation box has stalled because I haven't bothered asking at the village pump yet. Cobblet (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether "versus" should be abbreviated to "vs." in article titles, but I support having a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles. Incidentally, my suggestion of having en dashes denote individual games provides a neat way of disambiguating between matches and games involving the same players. Cobblet (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There already is "a consistent standard applied to all chess-related article titles", and it's the same one MOS applies to all other (non-legal) article titles, "X vs. Y". (WP:AT derives its style advice from MOS.) WP:Nobody cares, Cobblet, what personal-quirk way you "prefer" to abbreviate versus. Misplaced Pages isn't about you and how you want to do things to make chess seem special and different, or so you don't have to adapt your writing to Misplaced Pages a little since it's a completely different environment than a chess webboard. Nobody cares that your eyes and your fonts on your monitor using your browser (in this week's version) make "Guretzky-Cornitz" and "Guretzky–Cornitz" distinguishable; this is not true of everyone, and for people with vision issues your "fairly easy" is likely not good enough (note also, and this is crucial, that most screen readers for the blind do not distinguish these characters. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's way of doing "versus" situations in titles, then take that up at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. The legal field got a variance from "vs.", maybe you'll convince the community that one is needed here, too. (Good luck; I was a regular sports writer here, and I can tell you flat out that virtually no one is going to recognize "X–Y" as synonymous with "X vs. Y"; it must be a chess publication thing, which brings us to nobody cares that chess publications do a few things stylistically different; that's irrelevant here, because this is the world's most general-purpose encyclopedia for the largest conceivable audience). The last thing this notoriously standoffish and WP:OWNish project needs is another point on which it will be broadly seen as pushing an anti-MOS "rebellion" that violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy. Feel free to call me a WP:DICK for harshing on you, but I'm on my way back out to re-re-edit this for a sweeter tone, I think you really know better than what you're proposing, and I have already spent too much time trying to slap some sense into an entire project overrun with tendentious, battlegrounding, hostile WP:SOAPBOXers and WP:ADVOCACY-pushers who have no regard for anything but their own precious interests, for me to care any more. I am intentionally being a bit of a rude ass on this because some of you people just are not getting it, not matter how many times the rest of the community tells you are doing Misplaced Pages wrong, and I'm at a loss for how to get the message across other than yelling it in your faces. Bye. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖכþ Contrib. 21:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we need a WP:OCD and WP:PATRONIZE if they don't exist already. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've witnessed several of his "contributions" to similar discussions at WT:MOS, and you probably won't be surprised to hear me say that his participation always lowered the level of debate and made consensus harder to reach. Fortunately I don't think that will be an issue here. His recent dyspeptic (and I must say very impressive) rants aside, I don't think he's likely to lay siege to this page and attempt to drown out all opposing viewpoints with his shouting the way he often has in the past. Quale (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility to the average reader does matter to me. No doubt that using "vs." instead of a dash would be clearer for them. Am I correct in characterizing User:Bubba73's preference as "versus" in the body of an article, and "vs." in all other situations: titles, headings, captions, perhaps even notes? And does anyone else have an opinion? Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I like Kramer–Kramer and have used it in several chess articles, but this and previous discussions on this point has convinced me that we shouldn't use the dash this way except perhaps under specific circumstances in tables. "Versus" is too profligate for captions and possibly the the other uses you mention, which leaves us with "vs." I think it might be OK to standardize on vs. in nearly all contexts, using versus in running text. It should be OK to use vs. in running text as well, but it looks too much like the end of a sentence to me. Quale (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Quale, but what about article titles that identify games?

@Cobblet, I think you've mis-summarized Bubba's preferences. (I think he likes "versus" in both article titles, and section names that identify games.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did. I'll let him clarify. Cobblet (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My preference is "versus" in the text and "vs." in diagram captions. I don't have much of an option in section titles (or article titles) - I think I've used both. Bubba73 05:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, this says that "vs." is OK, depending on the context. It also says that the abbreviation is more casual, and if you are unsure - write it out. To me, an encyclopedia tends to be formal. Bubba73 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And it says that "v." or "v" should only be used in legal context. Bubba73 05:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And "Laws of chess" doesn't count as legal? Well, OK. </joke>. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

0-0-0 vs. O-O-O

We s/ really get resolution on this. The view "it's not important" is fundamentally correct, but ignores the fact there is also irrational intense passion behind the issue. The view "just so consistent within an article" ignores the fact there occurs thereby unending edit reversions (warring) based on personal taste. If I'm not mistaken most articles are 0-0-0 already, and the related documenation explaining FIDE vs. PGN is also in place. Personally I think O-O-O looks old-fashioned and s/b reserved for games 1899 and before for "antique-look" and as convenient tip-off the game is a couple centuries old, and O-O-O takes up an inordinate amount of horizontal space, but that is my own irrelevant personal preference. Cobblet feels Oh, that should obviously be 0-0-0. So I'm suggesting we do this and add it to the limited other WT:CHESS conventions to get it over with and end the otherwise endless source of friction (and inconsistency). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. The decision isn't "forever" obviously. (If the desire is to reverse at some point, how difficult is a mass change e.g., all "0-0-0"s → "O-O-O"s?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see little reason to deviate from what is the official albebraic notation described in the FIDE rules. Article C.13 clearly lists 0-0 over O-O. The chess books that I have, and that includes books from Gambit, Everyman, Mongoose, Random House, and Batsford, all use 0-0 over O-O. The O-O notation is mainly used in pgn files, but these are not truly algebraic notation despite the obvious and almost complete overlap. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Two things are clear: 1) You haven't read the FIDE rules. 2) You didn't read my original post where I pointed out the flaws in the FIDE rules. No point in discussing the issue until those two things change. DrZukhar (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice. Why not apologise for labelling Ihardlythinkso's edit vandalism? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DrZukhar, your argument The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. was deficient in that that edition of that book employs English Descriptive Notation (an old-style notation and a good application for "O", IMO), but the modern algebraic reprint uses "0". If a project consensus is drawn re "O" vs. "0", your preference doesn't "win". (Sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Re DrZukhar). I am an active arbiter of chess tournaments, so of course I have read the FIDE rules (this is required reading). Secondly, I read your original post as well and "flaws in the FIDE rules" makes no sense. The FIDE rules are the rules, and those are the ones that we follow regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. DrZukhar wrote above: The greatest chess book of all time, My 60 Memorable Games", uses 'O' for example. That's true for my 1969 Simon & Schuster (original) edition, but that edition also uses the old-fashioned descriptive (e.g. 1.P-K4) notation. (Which is a good choice. So both old-fashioned typographies are together. Did DrZukhar fail to mention that for some reason!? I do not know what decent reprinted editions use, does anyone have one and can tell?) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The new official edition uses "0". Bubba73 15:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. (I couldn't view any pages on Amazon.com.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

exd5 vs. e×d5

Oh. Could we also make this official!? (Why? Because Tony1 made a total nuisance of himself at Talk:Morphy versus the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard#Notation convention w/ his incessant baiting "But what about the sources?" mantra based on his tiny booklist and MOS obsession and admittedly not being a player, hello. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Again, little reason to deviate from FIDE's document on the laws of chess. In the appendix article C.9 states: "When a piece makes a capture, an x is inserted between...", so it is an "x" and not a cross/multiplication sign that is the standard algebraic notation. This is also the convention used in almost all chess literature. Some older literature, in particular German books, used the ":" notation (1.e4 d5 2.ed5: Qd5:), but it appears to be obsolete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank u. (I actually found "×" in several books in my library like Tony found, and it's pretty classy in those old books I must admit , but isn't standard by any means & didn't warrant a "fight".) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Be very careful or you will be blocked. Tony (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that all you have to contribute, Tony? Here's what you wrote at the Morphy versus the Duke:

I suspect that chess notation has never undergone scrutiny with respect to the sources. We should be pleased to debate this thoroughly. It's at MoS central talk page. Tony (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet, short of re-posting your mini book list, you didn't participate in the discussion at MoS, however you did repeat to my attention several times including after said discussion had ended the following question, where you apparently didn't feel one question mark was enough and made them triplicate:

Hardly, what about the sources??? Tony (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here again is a chance for you to contribute something meaningful to a discussion of the topic. Perhaps Guy Macon can come in here to help you out by referring to me again as a "mole" that needs "whacking", as he did on your User talk!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The colon is not quite dead yet, just on its way out, I think. Nowadays I think you will more frequently see it used just like "x", so. 1.e4 d5 2.e:d5 Q:d5; I typically use this outside Misplaced Pages. But x is assuredly the standard. Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not only is "x" used by most specialist publications, it is also the character used by mainstream sources such as newspaper columns—I've been making a list of them over at User:Cobblet/Chess publications. Cobblet (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation symbols (+−, ±, ∞, etc.)

Thanks to everyone who's been participating in the discussion so far. We've talked about the best way of formatting Informant-style evaluation symbols before, but I don't know if we've ever discussed the issue of whether to use them in the first place. I for one feel we shouldn't, because it's safe to say that no reader who isn't familiar with chess literature will have any idea what they mean, and because I don't see any advantage in using them. We're not bound by space constraints, and there's at least one publisher (Everyman Chess) that also scrupulously avoids using these symbols in its books. Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous notation issues

There are also a number of fairly trivial issues that were originally brought up at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation but did not generate much controversy. I don't expect that to change, but for the sake of completeness, I'll mention them here:

1. For pawn promotion, the common notation d8=Q is recommended as being more intuitive to the non-specialist reader than the alternatives d8Q, d8(Q) and d8/Q (the first is FIDE's recommendation, the other two are rarer).
2. For en passant captures, the notation gxh6 e.p. (which is also FIDE's recommendation) is recommended.
3. The symbol "++" for double checks is discouraged as being unnecessary, and also because FIDE regards it as a valid alternative to # for checkmate.
4. Even if a game ends in checkmate, a result (1–0 or 0–1) should be given at the end of the game score.
5. Expressions such as "g-file", "f5-square" or "e-pawn" should always be hyphenated.

Cobblet (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles on chess titles - merge?

I propose that the articles National Master and Chess master be merged into Chess title. They deal with essentially the same subject matter. In addition, the article needs to be "globalized". For example, the title "Expert" to refer to a player slightly below master strength is purely a USCF thing. The term "Expert" is not really used in this sense outside of the US. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the whole series of title articles needs to be looked at, including possible merges, and also in relation to the points that I flagged up on the Wikichess Project Page, which I will repeat here for convenience;

Chess title and FIDE title link back to each other and appear to contain some crossover/duplication. Would these be better combined into one article? Also, both articles focus on performance based titles while 'International Arbiter' and 'International Organizer' titles appear to have been ignored, even though they are both Chess and FIDE titles.

A few strands to consider, so no small task. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with merging National Master and Chess master into Chess title, and believe that the latter should also contain a summary-style section on FIDE titles. Cobblet (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OK as per WP:BOLD I'm going to transfer the material from National Master to Chess title and set up a redirect. Might take a few edits on Chess title to make it flow coherently.MaxBrowne (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dare I ask why chess.com doesn't have an article, just a redirect to a page that doesn't even mention it?

For some reason chess.com and[REDACTED] don't seem to get along, but it's an undeniable fact that chess.com is a hugely popular site with several million subscribers, and is one of the top 2000 sites on the whole internet in the Alexa rankings. That in itself surely qualifies it as notable? Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been a member of chess.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It used to have one, but I think it was deleted because of a lack of independent sources. Bubba73 04:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com (AfD discussion). One of the loudest voices in trying to get the page deleted was a longterm abusive sockpuppeteer, but other editors had concerns about the page as well. I think a well-written article with sources independent of the subject could demonstrate notability. Quale (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

IMO Chess.com should not redirect to List of Internet chess servers, that is confusing, and has led to quite a bit of confusion already. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the USCF site can be used as a source? Chess.com has grown considerably these last few years and has recently taken over the respected chessvibes site. (Not all chessvibes fans are happy about this). http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12379/319/ MaxBrowne (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lack of reliable sources is the reason the site does not have an article here. Second of all, that site's claim to "8 million members" is a total lie and everyone that plays chess online knows it. Another thing is that that site has nothing to set itself apart from any other chess server online. Well, maybe one thing is that the site gets an extraordinary amount of negative reaction, such as this blog: by IM David Pruess. But the main thing is the lack of reliable independent sources. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Another reason that Chess.com gets such negative reaction is that it is so obviously a for-profit website founded and run by people that don't even play chess. The only thing that the chess.com management cares about is how much money they can make. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The founders play at club level... but anyway I don't think this is particularly relevant. Clearly ICC and chessgames.com also have a profit motive, otherwise they wouldn't still exist. Chess.com is in fact the biggest chess site on the internet and it's absurd that it doesn't have a[REDACTED] page. And I'm not even a subscriber. I've started working on an article on my sandbox, I'll submit it when it's ready. It should go without saying that wiki will have no tolerance for single-purpose accounts bringing their drama from chess.com to chess.com's wiki page. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as you have Reliable third party sources for your article everything should be fine. Would you mind telling us what your sources are so far? Unless you get some reliable sources there will be no Chess.com wiki page. And it would be good if you dropped the pompous attitude. Fishface gurl (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on it... and a 10 day old account which has already managed to stir up a lot of drama and been logged twice on the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents probably isn't in the best position to decide what should or should not be included in wiki. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not deciding. Reliable sources decide. Do you have any? Fishface gurl (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any non trivial sources. I don't think this site is important but Misplaced Pages would be a little better if it covered the site. To my understanding chess.com got a lot of casual users from Facebook rather then committed chess players. Chess players tend to use chessclub.com (ICC), chesscube.com, lichess.org, playchess.com, freechess.org among others. Regards, Sun Creator 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your first sentence is gibberish. What are you trying to say? Do you speak English? More importantly why do you think that "Misplaced Pages would be a little better if it covered the site" when there are no reliable sources that discuss the site? Should we do away with notability requirements now? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And uh, no, mere alleged size does not equal notability, and it is not an "undeniable fact" that chess.com has 8 million subscribers, etc. You'd think if the site was as popular as it claims to be *cough* that it would actually be covered in some reliable sources. The lack of mention in any reliable media speaks volumes as to how non-notable that site is. Another wierd thing is that Max Browne claims that he's never been a member of chess.com, yet he defends the owners there saying they are "club level" players. How would he know of that? Does he know these people personally? If he was not a member or had a personal connection to Chess.com how would he know anything about its owners being club level players? It's certainly not written in any reliable sources. What I am seeing here is that a handful of editors are lobbying that the notability requirements be set aside just so Chess.com can sneak an article into Misplaced Pages. Why is that? Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would Misplaced Pages be a little better if it covered the site? It's something chess people would have heard of and have an expectation of finding on Misplaced Pages, few could say the same of Chessence or Julius Brach. I don't see 'editors lobbying' but if they did it here on this talk page, it would be near meaningless anyway. Regards, Sun Creator 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Chessence and Julius Brach covered in reliable sources? That is why they have articles and "Chess.com" doesn't. It is not what "chess people would have heard of" that decides what is covered her and what is not. The issue of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS militates against the inclusion of a "Chess.com" article. Policy is policy, irrespective of what one pov-pushing chess geek may argue for here. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Chessence told me it doesn't like being lumped together with Julius Brach. It received nearly twice the number of view hits last month as Brach received: vs. . Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. In any discussion about recreation and notability, only the opinions of established editors should be taken into account. Far too many new, single purpose accounts and probable sockpuppets here. Edit: Just to make it doubly clear, I will not engage with abusive single-purpose accounts or IP's. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the main points you should be considering is that you still haven't responded to any of the questions posed to you in your "quest" to force a chess.com article where it does not belong, and in contravention of all[REDACTED] policies. You choose to focus on the speaker and not the content. However, this Pompidou does have some important questions. Remember also, be nicer to the newbies. On top of all this, I repeat my first question to you: Do you have any reliable sources for this article? Yes or no. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what matters in any discussion about recreation and notability? Substantial coverage in reliable sources. Where is it? In addition, Max Browne's language saying it is "absurd" that Misplaced Pages does not have a Chess.com article, his wild personal attacks and allegations of sockpuppetry, and his willingness to flaunt the general notability guidelines just to get his pet article inserted all show that he is not coming from a Neutral point of view. 166.248.150.128 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fishface, Pompidou is probably not a newbie, more likely yet another User:Wiki brah sock. Quale (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm. If Fishface is a puppet, then it goes with Pompidou. Anyway. The WCF credits chess.com not with 8 million, but with 6 million, members: . --Askedonty (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well. Erratum - in fact the two are two very different WCFs. --Askedonty (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

1. @MaxBrowne:: while I'm sure that opinion re: "established editors" is based on many experiences with sketchy sockpuppeters, WP:AGF is a pretty crucial rule. Wait until you can suspect an account of sockpuppetry before saying "ignore all newbies".

2. (more on topic): Why is there such hostility on this topic? It's true that you can't go by Chess.com's self-published statistics, and most people are going to base "notability" on what they themselves use or have heard of, but I'd encourage any of you beating the WP:N drum to visit ALL OF THE OTHER CHESS SERVER WP PAGES.

• ChessCube - 2 refs from ChessCube, its Alexa stats, a bunch of dead links, blurb about the site as a business, and mention on Susan Polgar's blogspot site. These 2 so-so sources will seem like a lot as the list goes on.
• Chess Live - 0 references.
• ChessWorld - 0 references.
• FIDE Online Arena - only ref is FIDE's (so 0)
• Free Internet Chess Server, Internet Chess Club, and World Chess Network are the best sourced (but even they're not stellar, e.g. all of the FICS refs are from freechess.org, ficsgames.org, or a post on one of the admins' personal websites)
• Playchess - 0 references.

So even the flimsy links people have dug up re: chess.com surpass what there is precedent for. It seems that anybody who would AfD Chess.com would be hypocritical not to also nominate at least Chess Live, ChessWorld, FIDE Online Arena, and Playchess. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Other stuff exists - arguably, these should all get deleted too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mammoth book of Chess by Burgess discusses PlayChess, Internet Chess Club, and the ICCF website. Bubba73 03:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TechCrunch looks like a good source for establishing chess.com's notability and I can probably find more. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you just take the two seconds to search TechCrunch for Chess.com-related news before you posted that? If you did, you would have seen there is nothing substantial about Chess.com on TechCrunch. Furthermore, is TechCrunch even a reliable source in the first place? Max Browne's insistence on creating an article on Chess.com even with no non-trivial sources and in the face of so many people telling him sourcing does not exist smacks of either willful ignorance or a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue.

Also, concerning those other articles on chess sites, it is an invalid "other stuff exists" argument and all you are accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles now.

Speaking of deletion, Max Browne probably should take into consideration that "Chess.com" has been deleted from Misplaced Pages at least four, maybe five times already. Fishface gurl (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

TechCrunch is not a reliable source for at least two reasons: 1. TechCrunch does not have any editorial selectivity. It writes about every new internet startup. Does that make every internet startup notable? No. TechCrunch's "story" on Chess.com from 2007 is little more than a promotional blurb. More importantly, 2. TechCrunch was later involved in a huge editorial scandal which revealed that its "stories" were little more than a blog with severe conflicts of interest as well as no editorial oversight. see this NY Times story. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists != invalid. This is the WikiProject responsible for coming up with inclusion and notability criteria for chess-related articles (within general policy constraints). That means that if the "other stuff" is an entire category of chess articles which have been deemed acceptable, selectively dogmatic enforcement of the rules against one new entrant to that category, ignoring the rest, is concerning and might betray WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. If "all I'm accomplishing is making people want to delete those other articles," that's ok--not ideal, but at least some standards could be established. ...But to say that chess.com doesn't belong because it doesn't measure up? ...That TechCrunch is not a reliable source? ...That chess.com doesn't belong because it's for-profit? TechCrunch isn't a great objective source, I agree, but it has been established as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages for general purposes... and the kind of article you're talking about comprises several of the already scant citations on my little list above (in other words, by those standards, even fewer make the cut). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can you say that this group comes up with inclusion and notability criteria? The inclusion and notability criteria is dictated by the entire site. If you find the standards too strict perhaps you can start some sort of wiki of your own. Nobody also said that the sourcing for the articles you pointed out was acceptable. Those articles should be AFD'd according to the sources you found. Fishface gurl (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an appropriate essay User:Master_Thief_Garrett/Don't_add_sewage_to_the_already_polluted_pond. Pompidou Centre (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Pompidou Centre: - That does have some applicability. In general I have a problem with its logic being rooted in deletionist/immediatist (I can't believe I'm using those terms) assumptions/values (e.g. the possible connotative shift "if the homeless family already has day-old baked goods, don't give them any more"). But that's more of an aside. Regardless, the time and effort being exerted to prevent this one source of pollution is such that for every gallon of (chemicals?) the Chess.com article would add to the "polluted pond," people could have removed 10 gallons of chemicals already polluting the pond. That's not to say it--or any of them--should or shouldn't exist, but it seems to imply some other, more ideological motivations in play. Or perhaps it's just about making an example? --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Fishface gurl: Indeed. What I was referring to, though perhaps I overstated their role, are WP:Advice pages. WikiProjects often have second-order criteria (or "advice") on how to apply site policy to subject-specific articles. In some cases it has been these that led to subject-specific guidelines. Ultimately, however, I'm not arguing for nuanced documentation like "advice on internet chess server notability"; nor am I even saying one way or the other than Chess.com or any of those others should or shouldn't exist. It's just concerning that it seems people are putting up a particularly strong fight against this one site for POV reasons, holding it to strict interpretation of notability while turning a willfully blind eye to its equivalents, none of which would hold up to the same scrutiny. Something tells me if FICS were put up at AfD and I pointed to the standards for sourcing demanded of Chess.com via this and other discussion threads it wouldn't be long before someone directed me again to some essay like "There's other stuff" to dismiss comparison. --Rhododendrites (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I totally get what you are saying. I am sorry if I came off as shrill. If the Chess.com has reliable sources that substantially cover the subject then I don't see why it shouldn't have an article. My concern is that New York Times story on TechCrunch, which casts severe doubts on TechCrunch's objectivity. Did you read it? In my personal opinion, not that it matters overall, I think there are three "notable" chess servers. ICC has been written about since it was the first, FICS has been covered in the press due to a rather nasty split from ICC, and ChessCube has also been covered in the business press since it was unique in having received large amounts of venture capital from traditional venture capital sources; that resulted in some coverage in the traditional business press, I think. I do think it will be only a matter of time before Chess.com gets covered in the mainstream press or the business press, however. Then it certainly will be "notable" hands down. I believe also that coverage or even a mention in a traditional chess encyclopedia such as Hooper & Wilde or Sunnucks can assert notability. Just my thoughts, all the best. Fishface gurl (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the following SPI. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Fishface gurl (talk · contribs), along with several other accounts, has been indefinitely blocked as a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to lie low for now and let the drama die down, because honestly I don't even like chess.com much (ICC man myself). Anyone who wants to create such an article is welcome to use the material from my sandbox. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Pompidou Centre (talk · contribs) is on the list too. The article in your sandbox looks in better shape than it did during the last deletion discussion, if I recall, and at least one of those socks were vocal critics in that discussion. Maybe without them it wouldn't have such a hard time? I'm still ambivalent, but your sandbox version certainly looks passable (withuot having clicked the refs links). --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's notable that the main sources regarding this site's non-notability are themselves non-notable, certainly not reliable, and primarily written by Wiki brah. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sicilian Defence, Katalimov Variation

No reliable sources in the article, and no significant coverage in reliable sources that I know of. Other opinions? Cobblet (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't think it really needs its own article, the material can be included in the main Sicilian Defence article. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Bubba73 00:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Category question

I've just come across Category:Chess double grandmasters. Am I the only one who finds this category bizarre? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need it. Cobblet (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

When it was created I suggested that a list would be more appropriate than a category if we feel we really want to record this information at all. Short sections in the lists of correspondence and composition gm's might be warranted since I think there might be mild interest. Quale (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is something that is occasionally mentioned in the chess world and I would say a noteworthy achievement. It may be more of a European, rather than American topic of interest, as we have high profile characters like Nunn and Mestel with double titles here in the UK for example. We must however take some care with our chess title descriptions generally, not just in category introductions, but also in article space. As those who visit chessgames.com may know, there is sometimes reference to the grandmaster title that the Russian Federation awards its own players. This is not a FIDE title, but Natalia Pogonina for one, insists it is more difficult to achieve and therefore can be viewed as more prestigious than the FIDE version. Our title articles are quite poor at present - lots of duplication and even FIDE titles that are missing. I will add a note to the Wikiproject 'things that need ...' item regarding titles, so that Russian Federation titles are considered by anyone who rewrites/revamps the existing range of articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to ascertain who holds any Russian (or Soviet) titles and what they did to get them. Couldn't find them on the russiachess.org website. Here's some interesting stuff from Mark Weeks. Being a blog it's not a reliable source in its own right of course, but he seems to know what he's talking about and can probably help with sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A little more on this; a few weeks ago I copied from the German and Russian wikis to create the page List of Honoured Masters of Sport of the USSR in chess. I found another couple of interesting pages on the Russian wiki giving the history of the Master title as it relates to chess: Мастер спорта СССР по шахматам and Маэстро. For all of these articles the main source given is the 1990 Encylopedic Dictionary of Chess, edited by Anatoly Karpov and published by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, a source most of us obviously wouldn't have access to even if we did know Russian; however it appears to be one of the definitive reference works on Soviet chess. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good addition to the encyclopedia. I've reached out to a chess editor who has excellent knowledge of and sources for Soviet and Russian chess; maybe he will be able to help. For those who are interested, the chess project topped the 4000 article mark last month. I'm not sure precisely which article put us over. Quale (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's depends how we are measuring. A good way to evaluate this is using page_id at CatScan 2.0. By this way, the 4000th article created was Leonid Yurtaev but this list can change if we add/delete an older article. Well, congratulations anyway!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tip. According to the article assessment statistics on WP:CHESS, on 21 July the project had 3975 articles tagged {{WikiProject Chess}}, but Leonid Yurtaev was created in March. I'm not sure what explains the discrepancy, but it isn't hugely important. Quale (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alvaro Dias Huizar

Is Alvaro Dias Huizar, a FIDE master, notable enough for an article? Bubba73 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the article demonstrates[REDACTED] notability. Venezuelan national rank is 87, and of course Venezuela isn't an international chess powerhouse. Quale (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship frequency

At World Chess Championship there is some back-and-forth editing about whether it is every one year or every two years. It links to this, which says every two years, but is it every one year now? It needs to have the correct current information. Bubba73 00:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That source is from 2007 and is largely irrelevant now (virtually the entire plan it lays out was eventually changed, e.g. Topalov didn't get to play Anand until 2010). One could infer from the fact the World Cups are held every two years that FIDE wants to hold the WCh every two years. However, everyone also knows that in practice, FIDE's schedule depends on the availability of sponsors rather than any sort of organized planning on its part. Unless a better source (i.e. more recent, and ideally from FIDE) can be found to support either the two-year or one-year frequency (the FIDE calendar doesn't mention any schedule for the WCh after 2014), it's probably better not to say anything at all on the subject. Cobblet (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Quale (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting tool look for other articles in another languages

A long time ago I read here an user that created a list of chess articles that exists in german but not in english in order to create than. Well, now we have this tool that is quite simple and useful to do that. If someone wants some help translating from portuguese, please let me know. Regards! OTAVIO1981 (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

World Chess Championship 2013

View hits. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzz. Someone wake me up when it's all over. (Maybe we'll have 1 or 2 exciting games. I like Fischer's conditions: first to win 10; draws don't count!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Draws never do "count" in a one on one match. Decisive games are the exception rather than the rule between top grandmasters, and good luck finding a venue and sponsors for an open-ended match with no definite end date. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

They "count" in the sense that, each draw inches closer to the end of the match (so if a player is 1 game ahead, he is apt to seek draws, since draws are in his advantage match-wise; in Fischer's conditions, draws are truely worth nothing - a player has to win x number of games; and perhaps the necessity to play for wins would draw more interest, more ticket-paying spectators, counter-balancing the drawback you named). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If I know my chess history correctly, the "only wins count" format was abandoned due to the World Chess Championship 1984. If you look through the archives of those games you will see plenty of short draws there as well. (Chess Life even had a page covering many of those short draws, unannotated. The page was entitled "Sleeping pills".) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Right. But in that format, players eventually must play for wins to earn x wins. (In the "draws-creep-to-end-of-match" format, after 1 point ahead, there's no compulsion to press for even one more win.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Another voice in support for Fischer's format. I dunno, but the large number of short draws make all the excitement fizzle out at the beginning... Double sharp (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

An unlimited number of games is not practical. Remember the first Karpov-Kasparov match? They played for 5 months with no decision. There were 40 draws in 48 games - many of them short. Bubba73 16:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The "first to win x number of games" format also gives a slight advantage to the player who has white first. However, maybe there could be a hybrid format - first one to win x games, with a limit of y games at that time control. If it is tied after y games, then either the champion retains his title or there are rapid tiebreakers. Bubba73 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

And of course Fischer did not originate that format. It had been used in quite a few world championship matches before. Looking at world championship history, I don't see any evidence at all that first to win 6 or 10 games matches are more exciting than best of n as long as n is not too small. Anyway it was not one of Fischer's better ideas. First to win 6 games is completely impractical in modern chess, and the very first time the format was used in a match with participants of equal strength it was a catastrophe. K vs. K 1984 was not wonderful for spectators or participants. It was bad for chess, and even had the match continued to a conclusion it would not really have been any better. Quale (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Game 3: Exciting game #1! (But whoever loses might end up looking stupid re the a2-pawn. ) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen after the game 8 draw: "I did not particularly mind the draw as was evident from my play." And: "With the line I chose there was not too much to think about. The moves very much suggest themself. It has been played before. There wasn’t too much to think about. I wasn't in any mood to think either." (I wonder if his approach would have been the same in a 'first to win x games' format. He was White in game 8. The draw obviously puts more pressure on Anand in the current format. But has no advantage in the other format except bypassing a chance as White when one isn't "in any mood to think".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That format is interesting, but has two big problems: first, the player who starts the match with the white pieces gets an unfair advantage (which is why I would favour the "win by +2 idea" ), and second, sponsorship for a match of undefined duration would be hard to find even in Russia. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The color issue can mostly be eliminated by going WBBWWBBWW, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba73 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See here's what I mean ... from WP commentary on the final game: "Maintaining the tension with 30.Nc3, 30.Ng3, or 30.b4 should have given White a winning game, but Carlsen erred with 30.exd6, releasing the tension and allowing Anand to recoup the pawn soon after." (Does anyone really think Carlsen "erred" in not seeing three other more aggressive move options? The draw secured his championship. Playing for x wins would have spelled a more exciting game continuation at move 30.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think he erred at move 30. He could have taken a draw and won the championship. Instead he was playing for a win, even though he didn't need to. Bubba73 07:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Five moves later all major pieces were off the board. He could have taken a draw - what line do you mean, was there one more drawish? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen could have taken a draw in the last game and won the WC. (My pre-game prediction was a draw in 24 moves.) Instead he played for a win, when he didn't have to. So that kind of disproves the point that people will only play for wins in the "first to win x games" format. Bubba73 17:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen could have taken a draw - again (I think you missed my Q the first time), what line are you referring to (that Carlsen could have taken for a draw, but didn't)? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not referring to any particular line. He could have played for a draw. He didn't - he played for a win, until, as he said, after a time control when the calculations were too complicated. And he said that at the time, he thought that the 30th move he made was winning. Bubba73 01:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Carlsen addresses this in the first or second question in his part of the news conference. He says that he misses something simple. Bubba73 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

From listening to the press conference, Carlsen missed that 30.exd6 wasn't as good as he thought it was. In the video that Bubba73 links to, the relevant part is at 1.19.20. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Review

My Venezuelan comrades and I have contested your unwise, unsound, and imperialist deletion of Grand Master Dias Huizar here Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_12. You shall not get away with this insult to the Bolivarian spirit! Churrasco Eater (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_12. Bubba73 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• This is yet another User:Wiki brah sock. My advice is to ignore him, but do as you see fit. Quale (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I have activated Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexandra Nicolau

I today created the page for Käty van der Mije-Nicolau as she recently passed away. She is listed as Alexandra Nicolau on this Wikiprojects' articles to create section, so she might be crossed off the list. Unfortunately I don't know much about chess so one of this Wikiprojects members might wish to check the article for accuraccy. Cheers. Crispulop (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I made some small corrections. Käty van der Mije-Nicolau needs to be added to index of chess articles, but I don't know which letter for the last name. Bubba73 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's probably a policy on this somewhere, but I *think* particles in Dutch and German names are usually ignored in alphabetical lists. Our index is generally (van der Wiel, van Wely, van der Sterren, all names with "von") but not entirely consistent in this respect (de Groot, van der Nat and van Kampen). Cobblet (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done under M. Bubba73 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements to the article. Dutch name directories ignore prefixes such as: van / van der/ de, etc. So she is correctly listed under M.

I furthermore saw that User:Garybekker created a whole list of chess related articles and the most recent ones have not yet been tagged with WikiProject Chess. Those might be interesting for your Wikiproject. Crispulop (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Gary's done some good work writing about Aus and NZ players, but his articles are often challenged on Notability grounds. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheldon Wong & Gordon Crown

I welcome any feedback and improvements on these two articles. I think Crown qualifies for notability because of his strong promise, upset win over Kotov and premature death. I think Wong is notable in the context of Jamaican chess, since it was (ans still is) very rare for Jamaica to produce such a talented player at such a young age. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on writing the Crown article; it has long been needed. I can certainly add at least two more references from books that are authoritative, although I think that the online sources you already have (Chess magazine and Winter) are actually good enough to establish notability. I will either add direct if it seems straightforward, or contact you on your talk page if I am in danger of undoing any of your work. Unfortunately I don't have any detailed knowledge of Sheldon Wong, so will be unable to help you on that one. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

For some reason some editors have a problem with my description of "highly promising". I don't think it's hyperbole, or weasel words, or original research; just a paraphrase of the sources I've read. Nor do I see a problem with describing the death of an 18 year old as "premature". MaxBrowne (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then identify it as the opinion of those sources. On Misplaced Pages, "Nomen Nescio called John Doe a talented pianist" should never become "John Doe was a talented pianist". As for "premature", see WP:WTA. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see "premature" in the "words to avoid" article. Plenty of wiki articles refer to someone dying prematurely... and how is the death of an 18 year old not premature? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

1. The page has multiple ellipses and repeatedly uses the expression "words such as".
2. See WP:OSE.
3. It's subjective, and you end up in a slippery slope: if 18 is premature, what about 19? What about 20? What about 25? What about 40? Toccata quarta (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

18 isn't premature?? And the description "promising" is certainly supported by the source I supplied. Wikipedians can be so anal sometimes. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

ok I'm kind of irritated about this so I'm just going to restore those "promising" and "premature" descriptions. If you think they somehow violate[REDACTED] policy please take them to dispute resolution. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

None of what you wrote addressed my rebuttals. You have made no reference to any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view. "He was talented" is not neutral. "He was widely considered talented" is. Your use of the word "anal" is rude and gratuitous. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please add them to index of chess articles. Bubba73 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well hopefully the line I was (and still am) going to take should attend to those concerns, without losing sight of Crown's potential or early demise. I'll get on with it shortly. Meanwhile, you have reminded me of another long overdue article - Ian Wells (chess player). Wells was another teenager who died prematurely and uncannily, he was also noted for beating Kotov during his short life. If you don't know of him, see Chessgames.com for a brief bio and there is a longer reminiscence by Larry Evans, on something called SunSentinel I think, via Google. He is on my long term 'to do' list, but if anyone wants to pick up the mantle, feel free. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports festivals

Some time ago User:Nickst added categories such as Category:Sports festivals in Norway and Category:Sports festivals in India to various chess articles, including World Chess Championship 2013 and Chess World Cup 2013. The page Sports festival redirects to the article Multi-sport event, which says: "A multi-sport event is an organized sporting event, often held over multiple days, featuring competition in many different sports between organized teams of athletes from (mostly) nation-states." Neither a World Chess Championship or a Chess World Cup consist of "many different sports"; only chess is being played there. Thus, I think these categories should be removed, but I would welcome feedback from others on this matter. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think that redirect is wrong. It will be the new article about sports festivals (it is not multi-sport events only). It is a sports events with participating teams/athletes from another countries (not only from host country). If you will see any subcategory from Category:Sports festivals by country, you can see many such items. For example, 2005 World Archery Championships in Category:Sports festivals in Spain, 2013 World Women's Handball Championship in Category:Sports festivals in Serbia and so on. All international sports events are included in Category:Sports festivals by country cattree. That's why Chess World Cup 2013 was included in Category:Sports festivals in Norway and World Chess Championship 2013 must be in Category:Sports festivals in India. If you want to change current practice, you must start discussion in WP:Cfd or WT:CATP, not only in chess project. NickSt (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I think your definition of "sports festival" is wrong. Just because someone else doesn't know what a sports festival is and has categorized other articles incorrectly doesn't mean the same should be done here. "Sports festival" and "multi-sport event" are essentially synonymous, but there are mistakes in the multi-sport event article also. It claims that a multi-sport event features competition between international teams. In fact many sports festivals include individual competitions and are local rather than international, and I suspect that this is far more common than the international team examples. There are hundreds of sports festivals every year in the US organized at the state and local level, and I'm sure this is true in other parts of the world as well. I challenge you to find a single WP:RS that calls the World Chess Championship a sports festival. I'm quite serious about the demand for a citation. Without a source your categorization is WP:OR and must be removed. Quale (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Now the content of the category tree Category:Sports festivals by country is equal "International sports competitions hosted by X". That's why I have proposed to rename Category:Sports festivals by country to Category:International sports competitions by country. Your opinion is welcomed. NickSt (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

European Chess Champions

Recently I discovered Category:European Chess Champions. For some reason it does not distinguish between undisputed and women's titleholders, like the categories Category:World chess champions and Category:Women's World Chess Champions do. (Incidentally, why do they have contradictory use of capital letters?) I think Category:Women's European Chess Champions (or perhaps Category:European Women's Chess Champions) should be created. Comments? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the category should be removed instead. This is a category that should be a list, and in fact we already have it as all the champions can be found in one place at European Individual Chess Championship. I do not consider this category to be a defining characteristic in the way that the world championships are. Also I agree that the capitalization of the world championship categories should be straightened out, but I'm not sure which is the best way. I think I would agree to whatever Cobblet recommends, as he has given very good explanations of similar issues such as White vs. white. Quale (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needing cleanup

Before the match between Carlsen and Anand began, on 8 November 2013, a new World champion emerged: Vishal Sareen! ;-) The article needs substantial cleanup. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User behaviour

(Personal attack removed) Toccata quarta (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep this page a place to discuss chess-related content on Misplaced Pages? Remarks addressed only to one person should be made on that person's talk page: the rest of us are not interested. Cobblet (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't "speak for" me, Cobblet. I'm interested. That said, you're right, the issue belonged on User Talk. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, it's quite impressive that a comment that was not a violation of WP:CIV has been deleted as a "personal attack", and nobody appears to object to that. For some reason, the post with the word "anal" still remains here. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think that this is very helpful either "flush". Talkingfacts2 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Talkingfacts2 (talk · contribs) is a Wiki brah (talk · contribs) sock. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct. It seems he doesn't even try to hide it. I suppose he must have some other socks that aren't so blatantly obvious. Quale (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkingfacts2 is blocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Different fraction

What do you think of this edit? I've never seen fractions displayed like that in chess literature, but maybe it has been used by some writers. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I undid the edit. Fractions aren't used that way. The score was seven points out of nine, not seven ninths. Quale (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. (Confusing, and technically incorrect.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It really stands for "7 out of 9", not "seven ninths". What if he scored 7-1/2 out of 9?? Bubba73 05:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's simple arithmetic: obviously 71⁄2/9 = 15⁄18, even though only 9 rounds were played. A score of 6/9 would be reported as 2⁄3, and logic requires that we report a 9/9 score as 1. Quale (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope you are joking. Bubba73 05:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Obviously 71⁄2/9 = 5⁄6 MaxBrowne (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I was carless—Max is right. A few weeks ago someone changed ½–½ to 1⁄2–1⁄2 on a few chess pages. I reverted those too. It's partly a cosmetic issue since the fraction spoils the line spacing, but I also changed them back because I view ½ in a game score to be an atomic symbol that is understood and digested in one piece, not divisible into parts. Quale (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is where I show complete ignorance of editing basics. Last time I looked, the ½ symbol seemed to have been erased from the character subsets ( - the one I just used was copy-pasted!). So where do we now get it from? Obviously, I'm missing a trick here. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a cry'in shame. (It s/b in Help:Wiki markup and WP:MOSNUM. MOS:FRAC seemingly talks against it, but I discussed this w/ Bubba at Talk:Boris Spassky.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I was also disappointed that the fractions disappeared from the editing toolbar. You can use the ½ HTML entity, optionally followed by previewing and pasting the result back into the page if you would like the page source to use the Unicode character rather than the entity. This is a little easier than finding the Unicode symbol to copy from a different chess page or by googling. The MOS has long discouraged use of Unicode fractions. Although I agree that Unicode fractions are poor choices in many contexts, I think they are better for chess scores than the alternatives. Quale (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I had hoped it was just my stupidity, but sadly not. Brittle heaven (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com-related edit warring (again)

See List of Internet chess servers. Is there something that can be done to put an end to this "redlink-pushing"? I'm not even going to take it to WP:RPP, because protection would be dismissed due to "insufficient disruptive editing". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm in agreement. There's no requirement that every entry in a list article have a[REDACTED] page, nor does every entry have to meet notability requirements. This is exactly analogous to the treatment of individual sentences in a non-list article. See my edit, and I also wrote a bit about my opinion of the matter some months ago on the talk page. The biggest agitator to keep chess.com off that list (and in fact erase any mention of chess.com anywhere on wikipedia) was Wiki brah. Quale (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we bite the bullet, create the article and be prepared for an onslaught of sockpuppets then? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This is what we are up against: &. Yep, some people have a lot of time on their hands. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. That the primary detractors were now banned and/or socks is a pretty good reason for recreation. PS: This is likely the reason you linked to those two pages above, but to state the obvious so people don't have to dig: they're primarily authored by wiki brah. --— Rhododendrites |  03:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The detractors can detract all they want, but if the article was well sourced, it would have been kept. I'm all for re-creation; I would just make sure you have something solid before pulling the trigger.

Regarding whether an item without an article should be on List of Internet chess servers, I'm not aware of a policy on this. I think it would depend on the nature of the list. But in this case, I think you absolutely DO want that restriction. Otherwise, you're asking for the list to be overrun with non-notable COI additions. --SubSeven (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If that were to happen, action could be taken. Looking at the history of the page, I see no evidence that this has been an issue so far. Quale (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. (The corresponding chess principle is: "Only respond to real threats, not imagined ones.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

FIDE Federations Rankings

• Please, pay your attention, a very outdated article: FIDE Federations Rankings (ratings as of December 2010). Need to update or send to WP:AFD. NickSt (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I share Quale's opinion (expressed on the talk page) that this article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2013≤ (UTC)

Might be ok if we had people willing to go through the laborious process of keeping the article up to date... but people can just go to the FIDE site for that info so why bother? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

World Championship game 9

General discussion, do you think that Anand simply picked up the wrong piece in game 9 on his 28th move? Right after he did it his hand jerked, as if perhaps he picked up the wrong piece. Bubba73 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Judging by what he said at the press conference after the game, it doesn't seem to have been the case. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. (Anand: " as soon as I put the knight down, I finally saw what I had done.") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC).

In the video, it looked like his hand jerked right afterward. Bubba73 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced article

I have severe concerns about the quality of the article List of chess games. Please see my comments at Talk:List of chess games#Inclusion. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of world chess champions

Comments are welcome at Talk:World Chess Championship 2013#"20th world champion" and Talk:World Chess Championship#Numbering in Reigns of the champions. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Igor-Alexandre Nataf

See what you think. Please don't violate WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! in critiquing it. :) WikiVampires and Wikilawyers bring me down. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. I would recommend that you supplement those team and world championship results with some regular international tournament results. Mostly, I use the Polish wiki for this purpose as User:Pjahr over there (and here!) has a very good grasp of tournament results. I'd probably refrain from adding too many, as it may unbalance a short article, but Nataf has been particularly active in Reykjavik, Stockholm and Montreal, so I would probably just focus on them - also, his European Youth Ch. success in Rimavská Sobota - I'd probably add/reference that one per Pjahr initially and then switch to an English source later, if one can be found. If you are agreeable, I am happy to add these results myself, as I have some time available. The article should be added to Index of chess articles if you haven't done so already. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice start. There's a very short blurb on Nataf in the intro to Nunn-Nataf in The World's Greatest Chess Games that might possibly be useful, at least as a source to cite for the game. Also Nunn's Understanding Chess Move By Move (p. 70) says it was issue 75 rather than 76 of Informator that awarded the prize. Cobblet (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There is an articles for deletion discussion on Nataf going on right now. The problem is, that there to be no "reliable" real sources in the article at all. Look at the sources listed. I myself voted to delete it. If Tiger Lilov is unwelcome here even with many reliable sources why should this gentleman be on here? Tiger Lilov is a famous commentator and video producer and star in his native Bulgaria and tout le Monde where people play chess. Valeri Lilov (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess annotation symbols

A fairly important question (though related specifically to this revert): are unsourced chess annotation symbols contrary to WP:NPV (as well as WP:OR)? The edit summary "actually 14...Nxf2 rather than 17... Rxf2 looks like the outstanding move of the game, at least to this amateur" () is not in line with "Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." (taken from the NPV page). Toccata quarta (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• In general, I agree we should not be in the business of adding these annotation symbols on our own accord. In the specific case that you mention, the article says that the game was annotated in Chess Informant 76. If that source (or some other source) uses the "!!", I am OK with including it in the Misplaced Pages article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've never seen evaluative annotation symbols in a chess WP article without either a source specified or implied. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. A trickier and perhaps related issue is picking a diagram position when putting up a game (assuming a diagram is helpful or appropriate and improves the article in question). (On the one hand a diagram position sort of contains the implied message that the position chosen is critical, important, or interesting, and deserves the reader's attention .... which is sort of evaluative. On the other hand a diagram can be helpful to corroborate/confirm that someone playing over the moves has done so correctly to that point, and if the diag caption contains nothing emphasizing that the diag'd position is somehow a critical or important position, then I really can't see a harm or counter-WP policy for an editor to simply pick the position him/herself. ) Just some thoughts. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Diagram placement is not original research because it has not introduced any new information that is not apparent from the game score. The fact that it emphasises a certain point is true of just about everything we put in when we write articles. In almost all cases the aggregate information contained in the sources far exceeds the information that will make its way into the article, and the decision of what to include, what to focus on in particular detail, and what to leave out altogether, is an editorial decision based largely on common sense, not a decision that can be "looked up" in the sources. The articles we publish on Misplaced Pages should not contain original research, but they should be original (i.e. not plagiarism) and they should be the result of research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that explain, Sjakkalle. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

notability of grand masters

Is there a guideline for chess player notability? Must we rely solely on WP:GNG? Dlohcierekim 19:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the latest article on that French Grand Master fails as such. I think we need more relaxed standards for notability a departure from standard general laws of Misplaced Pages for chess articles. Many important chess articles have been forced to be deleted recently because of this. Such as Tiger Lilov who is a very well liked chess instructor, actor, and media personality in Bulgaria, Russia, and Greece and many parts of the world. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For clarify, as the topic title implies the content is about Grandmaster(GM). Tiger Lilov is NOT a GM; while Igor Nataf is a GM. Regards, Sun Creator 23:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Two most recent related Project threads/discussions are Notability problems preventing player coverage, and Chess notability, FYI. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on the second of the two discussions, "Chess notability," it seems as if there is not a consensus as to whether all Grandmasters are notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Comments like "there are too many Grandmasters not all of them can be notable" and such. I do not think this French GM has any coverage in the media. Valeri Lilov (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd welcome a discussion on a policy for chess players on WP:ATHLETE. I believe the position that all grandmasters are notable is reasonable. In this particular case, I'll note that Nataf is known to be Radjabov's second - see this interview for example. Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a good paragraphs from "Athelete": A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Misplaced Pages's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as the College Football Data Warehouse.Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.Some sources must be used with particular care when establishing notability, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide a level of coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage.

Being Radjabov's second is more of a trivial fact, how does that make anyone suddenly so important that they can get an article? Also, Tiger Lilov is a famous television, film, and internet persona in the same areas where Radjabov practices but he is more likely be known by millions of people tout le Monde where chess is known. Especially in Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, the Balkans, Romania, Serbia. Basic rules like multiple non trival sources are still the basic rule. Valeri Lilov (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nataf is a GM, has represented France in international competition, competed in world championships, played one of the most famous games in the 1990's, and is a second for a world championship candidate. All of these facts can be cited to reliable sources. Your statement that Lilov is "famous" cannot. If you're going to troll, at least try a little harder. Cobblet (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify one point WP:GNG is primarily an inclusionary guide, not so much an exclusionary guide. If one meets GNG, one is notable. However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG. The problem here is not the notability of the subject but the lack of an appropriate guideline. I just can see putting under athlete. Dlohcierekim 22:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How about we create a guide line and put it on the main page project page? Here's my first stab at it:

"Chess players are generally considered notable if they meet one or more of the following criteria. However please note that this is only a guideline, not a set of rules to be followed rigidly.

• Grandmasters
• Players who have qualified for an Interzonal, candidates tournament or world championship tournament
• Finalists in the national championship of a major chess playing country
• National champions of International Master strength or better
• Players who have represented a major chess playing country at an Olympiad or other national team event
• Players who have at some point in their career been rated among the world's top 100 players
• Prominent chess authors, chess magazine editors and chess columnists
• Prominent chess trainers
• Prominent chess problem and endgame composers
• Players who have received significant coverage in the mainstream news for chess-related activity"

MaxBrowne (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Also correspondence players, arbiters, and maybe organizers. Bubba73 04:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always thought that project-specific notability guidelines are usually a mistake, and that WP:GNG should be sufficient in nearly all cases. I think my view is in the minority here, as many people have suggested over several years that a chess guideline is needed. I still think that our experience with WP:AFD is that very few notable chess biographies are deleted (I can only think of one off hand, and that was an article on a chess journalist that wasn't very well sourced) and few non-notable chess biographies are kept. Lilov and Wiki brah would still be annoyances even if we had chess-specific guideline, but if other chess editors want to develop such a guideline I won't stand in the way. Quale (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the project must be very careful if it develops such a guideline. Any guideline will be used to argue for article deletion as well as retention, so make very sure that the guideline doesn't exclude any biographies that you think should be kept. Quale (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think such a notability guideline could be used to argue for deletion of an otherwise notable topic—WP:ATHLETE is very clear that "if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Misplaced Pages's standards for having an article in Misplaced Pages, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline." In my mind, the main purpose of such a guideline is to allow us to SNOW close AfDs where a clear consensus to keep has already been established (e.g. all FIDE grandmasters). WP:ATHLETE suggests that in developing a new guideline, we should "consider what criteria that, if met, nearly 100% guarantees the sports figure will have significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources." In the spirit of that, I'd suggest a shorter list of criteria than MaxBrowne's (in particular, a "prominent" person is essentially tantamount to "a person who satisfies WP:GNG", so it isn't necessary to say that again), so I'd propose something more like this:

• Holders of the FIDE or ICCF GM titles
• Players who have qualified for a FIDE Interzonal, World Cup, Grand Prix, Candidates tournament or world championship tournament, or the analogous events for the FIDE Women's World Championship cycle
• Players who have won the unsegregated (neither by age nor by sex), over-the-board championship of any national federation with at least 10 FIDE grandmasters in its history according to the count provided by FIDE's website, or players who have represented such a federation at the FIDE Olympiad
• Players who hold the FIDE IM title and have won the unsegregated, over-the-board championship of any national federation

The "10 FIDE grandmasters" is my attempt to define a "major chess playing country." (Alternative definitions, e.g. one based on the total number of titled players, are equally possible.) And I prefer criteria based on titles and tournament results rather than ratings since ratings haven't been around as long. (For players who predate FIDE we'd have to fall back on WP:GNG anyway.) Regarding Bubba's suggestion, while I think any correspondence GM would be notable, I'm not convinced that all FIDE IAs, IOs, or ICCF IAs are also notable, so I'd prefer deferring to WP:GNG for arbiters/organizers in general. Cobblet (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

An arbiter for a world championship or other top level event would probably qualify as notable, not so sure about an arbiter for an ordinary GM tournament. Arbiters for top level events are often strong players in their own right anyway (e.g. Lothar Schmid) and would qualify as notable on that basis.
Your criteria involving FIDE titles won't work so well for historical chess figures. Besides the players who died before 1950, there were a number of players, particularly in the Soviet Union, who were clearly of IM, perhaps GM strength but never received a FIDE title (e.g. Alexander Koblencs, Igor Platonov). Chessmetrics is a decent source for pre-FIDE ratings, some argue that the chessmetrics ratings are more accurate.
As far as potential for abuse goes, we could state explicitly that this is a guide as to what should be included rather than what should be deleted. Then next time a new user shows up and nominates an article about a GM for deletion we can just point to the guideline and move on. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your first point was precisely what I was trying to say: just because a person does not satisfy the criteria we've listed does not mean they don't satisfy WP:GNG—the people you mention clearly do. There's no universally accepted way to determine who was of "GM strength" and who was not, so I don't think that sort of wording should appear in the guideline. Your second point is exactly how WP:ATHLETE is intended to be used, if I'm reading the guideline correctly. Again, the guideline isn't meant to replace WP:GNG for games/sports-related biographies; its purpose is only to establish that "if the article does meet the criteria set forth... then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Cobblet (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your lists of guidelines are way too loose. The guidelines are supposed to be a sport-specific guide to which types of articles meet GNG and which don't. I would say that none of the categories listed would meet GNG except maybe Grandmasters, and even then not too often. You also do realise that AFD gets participation from the entire internet right? People outside of the "Wiki Chess" or whatever get to weigh in, so if you propound these guidelines that don't meet GNG you're just gonna be in for a rude awakening. Just for the record, the above statment of "However, one can not meet GNG and still be notable. That is why we have specialized notability guidelines for subjects not covered by GNG." is completely wrong. You can't subvert GNG with a genre-specific guideline. Gameof ThronesGuy (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:AGF and WP:BITE, but why would a new account want to get involved in this discussion? Just wondering. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of top chess players throughout history, redux

While we're talking about WP:NPOV/WP:OR, what about this article? I'm of the opinion that the first table, which for some reason lists peak FIDE rating for precisely 21 players, is at the very least too long. I believe the only rating peaks that have received significant coverage in reliable sources are historical all-time highs like Fischer's 2785 rating (I'm sure I could find a number of sources that talk about how long that record stood for and how it was eventually broken by Kasparov) and ratings over 2800 (one can Google "Topalov 2800" or "Kramnik 2800" to see examples of news coverage). Also, I believe the last table, which counts the number of times a player defended a world championship title and the number of years they reigned, because these are allegedly "considered by some as a measure of chess greatness", is an original synthesis of information and should be removed. What do you guys think? Cobblet (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Five years ago I argued on the article talk page that the highest ratings list shouldn't be trimmed very much, but I have been wavering on that point for a while now. I'm not sure what to do with it. Eventually Fischer won't even be in the top 20, so some change will be needed.

On your second point I agree the world champions table is a problem. There is some discussion of this on the article talk page although no consensus was reached. Although it's likely that it is true the number of titles and length of reign is "considered by some to be a measure of greatness", it isn't cited. The table is very hard for someone to understand if they aren't familiar with the ugly split in the title (Undisputed, FIDE, and Classical columns). Maybe instead of a table, a few (say three to five) of the world champions with the longest reigns could be discussed in a paragraph or two in the text. Quale (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my views on the first table: I suppose it's meant to illustrate the point that "one way to compare players of different eras is to compare their Elo ratings". But the subsequent discussion basically contradicts this idea, e.g. "Arpad Elo was of the opinion that it was futile to attempt to use ratings to compare players from different eras." In light of that, I don't think such a lengthy table squares with NPOV. I agree with your points on the last table—I might take a stab at fixing that at some point. Cobblet (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I think the following Rfc is relevant to this project. Wikipedia_talk:User_access_levels#Request_for_comment_-_autoconfirmed_status_to_nominate_an_article_for_deletion

My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to try to not let sockpuppet vandals get you down. They are annoying, but eventually they get bored and go away. Even this extremely persistent gnat can't cause any permanent damage unless he aggravates you enough to stop contributing, so I hope you don't let that happen. Quale (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Incredible

This is incredible. In the 1960 Olympiad, 14th Chess Olympiad, Smyslov and Petrosian were reserve players! Bubba73 03:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Chess.com (yes, again!)

The article Chess.com has just been recreated. Unfortunately it was created by an incompetent editor, so unless it is improved soon, it will find itself at the AfD page in the blink of an eye. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne/sandbox MaxBrowne (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI: copied it over. thanks --— Rhododendrites |  16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Keene illustration

If anyone's interested: Talk:De ludo scachorum#Keene's illustration. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Portable Chess Notation deletion debate

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Portable Chess Notation. SpinningSpark 21:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

First Saturday

I think the regular "First Saturday" event in Budapest should have its own article. It's been running for 20 years now. While some deride these tournaments as "norm factories" they've been a training ground for many well known GM's. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure if it still runs, but similarly popular with norm seekers was the Third Saturday tournament in Belgrade/Beograd. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Interactive chess board

The Hebrew version of World Chess Championship 2013 contains an interactive chess board which allows the reader to go forward and back with the moves. How hard will it be to adapt it to enWiki to allow interactive chess boards in articles? Will it be feasible? (I dont see why not, but no harm in asking)

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I came to know of it because of User:Yoavd. Maybe they could help with getting us a similar template for enWiki? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've already asked user קיפודנחש (kipod nakhash?) about it (he occasionally contributes to the English wikipedia). Not sure if he was the developer but he was the main author of the pgn template page. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I see we're a bit slow on the uptake. There have been several discussions at the Village pump but due mainly to inertia we have never adopted such a script for the English wikipedia. Here's some more info on the script anyway. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There's even a subproject page... ok I'm way behind the eightball. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks very cool. They have a template over there which lets them just type "{{pgn|(game 1 in PGN)|(game 2 in pgn)}}" etc for up to 20 games. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• MaxBrowne, are you working on it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

is MaxBrowne, or anyone else working on this? what can i do to push this forward? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A bit of inertia here at the moment, with holidays coming up and all... and I don't have much in the way of javascript skills though I'm sure I could learn. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

i can take care of the scripting - the issue here is not so much the script, but rather how to push this through the approval process to make this a gadget, and hopefully, one day a default gadget (so it's available to anons). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• קיפודנחש (kipod) and MaxBrowne , If there is a script ready, The approval process for a gadget could be relatively simple. It would only require community approval for that. We could ask on WP:VPT for more opinions. Thoughts? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni, the script is here. to see it in action, add the line

importScript('User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer.js');

to Special:MyPage/common.js, and view User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer demo. (note the game selector at top of page: this demo contains the first 9 games from 2013 world champoinship. in hewiki, this is packaged inside a template, so it looks slightly fancier - see he:אליפות העולם בשחמט 2013). let me know what you think. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• קיפודנחש (kipod) The script looks fine. But since most games are shown standalone and towards the right, how hard will it be to adapt this into a version that displays a single game while taking up lesser space (Maybe only the board and some buttons present, rather than the moves too).

Also, would it be possible to show the image of a single position from the game for anyone who does not have the script enabled? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni: single game does not take significantly less space than multiple: all you save is the selector at the top. one possible way to "save" space is to use smaller default size for the board itself (you can use the slider to try different sizes, unless you use the abominable IE).

i do not think it's a good idea to hide the moves' list. as to showing an image of a single board for users without JS enabled: this is probably possible by using the {{Chess diagram}} within some "noscript" div (i.e., a div which is only visible to viewer with JS disabled). i don't remember the exact details of how to accomplish such a fit, but i'm 97.12% certain it's possible. if we are not really talking about "without JS" but rather "without the script", then this is definitely possible: the "script" includes some CSS (which actually reside in a different page that the script loads: User:קיפודנחש/pgnviewer.css), and this CSS hides the actual content of the PGN list. without this CSS, the png list is visible, together with anything else...

of course, this whole thing will make much more sense once we package the raw DIVs currently on the demo page within a nice template (something similar to he:Template:pgn).

one thing i forgot to mention in the demo page is that the script allows the editor to decide at which move the board will be shown initially. i'll try to add this now.

one thing we do in hewiki to prevent the viewer from dominating the whole article by its sheer size, is to package it inside a collapsible div. see he:תחרות העל טאטא סטיל 2013 (this is the 2013 tata steel games): there are 13 different viewers, one for each of the 13 rounds of the competition. they are all packaged in collapsible divs (i'm sure you'll figure it out). peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• קיפודנחש (kipod) - Ideally, I was looking for a script to do the following -

1. Display a game taking up a size similar to the one displayed at, say, Vishwanathan_Anand#World_Champion_2008.
2. For the readers without JS/your script, display just a static chess diagram at the given move (Here the final position)
3. For the readers with your script, display a dynamic diagram which can allow to move forward and back between moves.

What do you think, and would it be possible to make by changing your script adequately? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni: i am not sure what changes are you talking about exactly, and i'm not sure the changes you think should be made are actually improvements. i'd like, at the least, to have clearer and more detailed description of how you think this should look, and i'd like to hear some more people who agree that such changes are indeed desirable.

let me explain/demonstrate what *i* see as the proper use of this tool (without any significant changes): as an example, i'd like you to look at Pirc Defence, and specifically, look at the "Sample games" section. now look at the hebrew version of same article: although the article itself is much richer and more detailed on enwiki, IMO, the "sample games" on hewiki is vastly superior, because it uses this tool. i imagine this, and similar articles, improving by using the script, especially if we can make sure that users without the script or with JS disabled will see something similar to the way this section looks today. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• To better understand what's the best thing we need, I have asked for other editors' views at the WP:VPT. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

KnightCap notable?

Does KnightCap establish its notability? Bubba73 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Use of Temporal Differences (machine learning) was quite unusual and experimental at the time. Gets quite a lot of google hits if you want to improve the refs. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Wall is not a reliable source.

I will tag any articles I see that cite Bill Wall with {{Verify credibility|failed=y}}, which comes out as "". Edward Winter gives several examples of Bill Wall making stuff up or embelishing stories, or just being plain wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain a bit more background on this? Almost every source with lots of information has factually incorrect information. Almost all news media occasionally have embellishing stories and plenty of things that are plain wrong, that doesn't normally result in removal of all references of it. I'm concerned we are throwing out the baby with the bath water. Regards, Sun Creator 10:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill Wall's articles are self-published on an old geocities site. They do not cite original sources, have no editorial oversight and repeat a lot of rumours and legends as if they were facts. As Winter points out, the best sources for historical chess information (contemporary news reports, statements by witnesses to the events) aren't really found on the internet, but they can still be cited. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about Bill Wall's published work as an author and journalist, or the self-published information on his personal website? The former is an RS, the latter is not. Cobblet (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

SPA

Does anyone know what is the deal with this? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing pattern suggests a possible Conflict of Interest. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrei Volokitin

Toccata quarta and I disagree on the relevance of Andrei Volokitin's (earlier) victories over the current world champion. Could some-one else chime in on this issue, please. Kdammers (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention Volokitin's record against Carlsen unless specific mention of this fact has been made in reliable sources (perhaps because the two have some sort of notable rivalry against each other, to name one hypothetical reason; but AFAIK they don't). Imagine: if we do it for Volokitin, why not do it for all chess players who have played against Carlsen? And should we then remove all such mentions as soon as Carlsen is dethroned, and do it for all the people who've played the new world champion? And on and on it goes... Cobblet (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is that Carlsen is extraordinarily dominant, yet this one player has a very strong record against him. that seems to me significant.If things change in the future, that's an issue for the future. Kdammers (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But you neglected to mention that the two players have not met since 2008 and that the last of Volokitin's wins came in 2006, when Carlsen was only 2600. The way you wrote it made it sound like he had achieved the record while Carlsen was world champion, which is false. Cobblet (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Good resource for tournament results

This site (run by the Italian chess federation I think) covers a lot of major tournaments going back to the 70's. It's particularly good for world junior, U18, U16 etc championships. It's in Italian but that doesn't really matter if you're citing a crosstable. torneionline.com. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential Copyright violation in Chess photograph.

Look at the file purporting to show a photograph from 1965. The file was uploaded to Wikimedia as "own work." Doesn't that mean the Wiki user took the photograph? Which would mean that he himself snapped that photograph in 1965, then later converted it to digital form, then uploaded it to Wikimedia over forty years later. That just doesn't sound right does it? I'll link to the photo.

Sopqhalfa (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. The uploader is active on the Russian Misplaced Pages, ru:Обсуждение участника:Skytao, why not ask him. Or ask on Wikimedia commons, as the photo is currently available in every language. Regards, Sun Creator 19:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the Russian wikipedian may be a member of Osnos's family. He also supplied the 2006 photo. Anyway unless the copyright is challenged there's no reason not to assume good faith. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Notable?

Erik Kislik (chess player). I am not really sure that this chess player is notable. MrsHudson (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A fair question; I'd say not. As a rough guideline for modern day players, we might typically say GM, or IM who has another claim to notability, such as a coach of top players or a prolific author. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that he is not notable enough for an article. Bubba73 01:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Bubba73 and Brittle heaven. Regards, Sun Creator 01:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:GNG and the current state of the article, I'd say no. Cobblet (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Your current state of the article criterion for notability is simply wrong. From WP:Notability guideline:

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Misplaced Pages article. if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Misplaced Pages article will not decrease the subject's notability.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had assumed good faith, you might have realized I meant that there is currently nothing in the article that demonstrates the subject's notability. But you are either unwilling or unable to make that inference—I don't know which it is with you anymore—so you choose to discredit me based on your own interpretation of my words. How predictable and tedious. Now go on and tell me how I've mischaracterized you. There are a number of people watching this forum, of course, but don't let that stop you. Cobblet (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I can see what you meant now, but your ambiguous sentence, combined with your lack of understanding at the Chess.com AfD how WP:OTHERTHINGS is bogus/irrelevant argument for keep or delete, made me suppose you also did not know or understand WP notability policy in this case. (Not bad faith; just observing you. You also accused me of a personal attack against User:MaxBrowne, where that was ridiculous and untrue, and demonstrates you don't understand that policy as well. You can kindly get off my back with your condescending fake smears and reprimands, Cobblet!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If you had assumed good faith, you would not have made such a condescending supposition. I will not respond to your off-topic comments regarding our previous interactions, but am amused that you were again unable to resist the temptation to bring them up. Cobblet (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

And if you would have assumed good faith, then you would have been able to understand there was ample reason to suppose that your lack of understanding of policy & guidelines needed some helpful clue. (BTW as long as you think there's an audience judging me and I should venture to respond to your accuses if I dare, here's more example of your condescending and baloney patronizing: I'm disappointed that one of our most experienced editors stooped to the very name-calling he accuses the other editor of, and that it happened after what was actually a perfectly civil discussion. Do you mean which discussion resulted in said user MaxBrowne reverting his add at Sicilian Defence with editsum screw it. i try to improve this page, you just quibble over wordings. denigrating user Toccata for endeavoring to conscientiously follow WP:WTA!? A beautiful set of principles you're basing your condescending reprimands on, Cobblet.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. You wouldn't happen to have something to say regarding the notability of Eric Kislik, would you? Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry Cobblet, I don't get your drift. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC) p.s. Oh I think I get it: After failed fake attempts to accuse me of bad faith, disingenuousness, reprimand & humiliate me on this board, you now like to ... return to business!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Right! Stop that! It's far too silly! Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

The GM list

It seems to me the List of chess grandmasters is updated in a somewhat haphazard fashion. When was it last fully up to date? We should be updating it every time FIDE issues a list of new GM titles. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Lucena/Philidor/Vančura

I've noticed some inconsistency on this in various articles. Sometimes they use "Lucena/w/e position", while others use "Lucena/w/e Position". What is the standard on this in English-language chess literature? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not it is a proper name, and I'm not sure. Fundamental Chess Endings does not cap "position". Bubba73 20:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A survey of some of the sources I have on hand:

• Emms, The Survival Guide to Rook Endings (Everyman 1999), p. 16-19: "Lucena Position".
• Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2nd ed., Russell 2008), p. 143: "Lucena Position"; p. 147-149: "Philidor position".
• de la Villa, 100 Endgames You Must Know (New in Chess 2008), p. 124-135: "Lucena Position", "Philidor Position" (but there is one case of "Philidor's position" on p. 125).
• Grivas, Practical Endgame Play—Mastering the Basics (Everyman 2008), p. 50-54: "Lucena position", "Philidor position".
• Makarov, The Endgame (Chess Stars 2007), p. 125: "Philidor's position".
• Howell, Essential Chess Endings (Batsford 1997), p. 42-44: "Philidor method", "Philidor defence", "Philidor's defence"
• Nunn, Secrets of Rook Endings (2nd ed, Gambit 1999), p. 111: "Lucena position".
• Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (Siles Press 2007), p. 121-132: "Lucena Position", "Philidor Position".

So clearly there is no consistent standard. In such a situation my suggestion would be adhere to Misplaced Pages's preference for sentence-case capitalization (i.e. lower case). Cobblet (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Index of chess articles

Index of chess articles has been moved to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Chess/Index of chess articles. If you are watching recent changes on that, you need to update it. Bubba73 23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert Forbes Combe

I'm wondering if we could justify an article on this guy. It's certainly an interesting story, this obscure small town Scottish lawyer who hasn't played a serious game of chess in 6 years coming out of nowhere to win the British championship. Is that enough to establish him as notable? Before that, he was best known for losing a game in 4 moves at the olympiad. http://www.chessscotland.com/history/biographies/combe.htm MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I support an article for every winner of the British championship, as long as the subject meets WP:GNG. Two or three good sources should be enough to create an article. Apparently he has an obit in BCM Vol. 72 (1952), p. 106, but I don't have it. Quale (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems justifiable to me. I was wondering if him winning the British championship was a fluke, but Alexander, Abrahams, Winter, Golombek, Milner-Barry and Wade all competed and finished behind him, so definitely not. Cobblet (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Based heavily on the Chess Scotland article but rephrased to avoid copyvio. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good addition to our chess bios. Quale (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Chessplaying?

Perhaps there's a better place for this, but do you WikiProject Chessfolk play online at all? I'm guessing based on recent events that not a whole lot of you play on Chess.com :) I haven't played much of anything in the last long while, but I have accounts on FICS and Chess.com. --— Rhododendrites |  23:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• I am on ICC . I am not on chess.com but I have friends who are. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ICC too. Better players, and slightly less blatant in their capitalism. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mainly OTB, but some correspondence-type chess on Chesscorner.net. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been considering joining ICC again (I've had a few accounts over the years). I was a dedicated FICS user for about 15 years, but bughouse eats too much of my time and soul :) A couple friends invited me to chess.com a while back and it seemed like a decent way to get a fix without being distracted by the variants and chat stuff (I've never used the message boards). Maybe the WikiProject membership page could have a section for ICS usernames. --— Rhododendrites |  15:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, speaking as a biased FICSer, ICC is the epitome of capitalism -- taking something that was free, closing it off, and charging for it...but that was a couple years ago. --— Rhododendrites |  15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Short moved

The article on Nigel Short has just been moved to Nigel Short (chess grandmaster) by User:Alfietucker. "Chess player" is actually the common practice for disambiguation in titles, but I believe here it does not matter, as the other Nigel Short does not appear to have the former Short's notability (judging by a quick Google search I did). Hence I think the page should be moved back. What do you think? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Cobblet (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it requires admin intervention. Regards, Sun Creator 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the article back to Nigel Short and linked to the new article by means of a hatnote. The difference in coverage the two subjects have received should make Nigel Short the chess player the primary topic that most searching for "Nigel Short" will be seeking. I should note however that the new article that Alfietucker made on Nigel Short the singer was by all means a well-written article with dilligent sourcing. I wish all new articles met that standard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Titles and dates in infobox

This edit raises an interesting issue. In my opinion other titles obtained by a player (e.g. Master of Sport of Russia, International Master, Woman Grandmaster, ICCF Grandmaster, Problem Solving Grandmaster, International Arbiter, FIDE trainer etc) are relevant biographical info and should be included in the infobox, along with the date they were obtained (if known). Could even expand the Infobox chess biography template to accommodate this if necessary. Thoughts? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to OTB playing titles, I'd probably stick with the most meritorious in the infobox, otherwise it will get very cluttered (the top women often go the route WFM, WIM, WGM, IM, GM for example), but the real issue lies with other, trickier titles, as you point out, like other FIDE titles held in parallel, such as IA or IO, or problem solving and correspondence titles. And where to stop? There would be the thorny issue of GM (emeritus/honorary) titles to consider. What about the British honours system ... would we have a place for CBE, OBE, MBE etc? Again, these have a hierarchy and the more prominent ones can be awarded after a lesser one has already been gained. Clearly, other countries have their own versions as well, not to mention the more medal-based award systems for being leading sportspeople, masters of their sport ... such as are prominent in the former Soviet states and in India among others. Academic titles such as Ph.D. or B.A./B.Sc. can also be earned the traditional way or awarded for achievement in the field of sport/chess (Miles and Short are just two recipients of these). And if we want to religiously put all these things in the box, who would research the dates and fight off all the trolls who will need proof of every last detail? Even something as simple as youngest ever IM title is causing trouble at the moment - an anon editor has recently removed Karjakin's claim which has been here and on Chessgames.com for a long time, but I cannot find a reliable source (can anyone help?) even though I'm fairly sure it is him. This particular issue stems from an argument on Chess.com, where one person contends the accolade belongs to an up-and-coming US player, as far as I can tell. In summary, it all sounds like a difficult struggle, but worth considering of course. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

I am currently conducting a Good Article review on Bobby Fischer. This article is of top importance to this Wikiproject and is extremely well cited and has a bulk of references that are 404ed or have been modified since implementation that could quickly be broken at a later date. I have some understanding of the subject, but in order to do a proper in-depth review, this will take both a long time and additional eyes because I have numerous questions about the content that I am preparing to bring up. I'd hate to have this article, nominated months ago, be failed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tom Braunlich

Does anyone know if Draft:Tom Braunlich the Pente champion and collectible card game designer is also a chess master? I found several hits on HighBeam if we can connect these activities to the same person. If we can add more sources to the article, I did a requested move on the talk page to get it restored back to article space. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems he is quite a strong player, peak FIDE rating was 2219 which is Candidate Master strength. FIDE site has been down for a couple of days but I found his rating history here. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I find that his entry on BoardGameGeek connects all these aspects under one person, so I suspect all of those HighBeam hits may be valid for him. BOZ (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

After a successful Requested Move, Tom Braunlich is an article once more. :) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Pgnviewer demo

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

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)

Castling article

I screwed up the spacing on Castling#Notable_examples. Can someone please fix it? Thanks. Krakatoa (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for any confusion. (I put diags above their sec heads to conserve vertical space each time. If WP:CHESS doesn't like that, I'll stop doing it.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 |  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. ) 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. ) 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. ) 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. 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.

@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 Misplaced Pages'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 |  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 "if 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. 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. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Some real-life examples

1. 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."
2. From Grünfeld Defence: "White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation."
3. From Lopez Opening: "Black can respond vigorously with 2...d5! to eliminate transpositional possibilities and solve all of his opening problems"
4. From Chess#Check: "It is illegal for a player to make a move that would put or leave his own king in check."
5. 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."
6. 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."
7. 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."
8. 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)."
9. 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."
10. 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:

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 ⁄_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 Misplaced Pages: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 |  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 "when 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 |  14:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)