A news item involving World Chess Championship 2023 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I've only ever heard "Delayed Exchange Variation" whether it's on my 5 or 6. Delayed and deferred together just sounds dumb, I highly suspect that's a name invented by someone from wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 05:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
-- IHTS ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)DERLD, the 'Delayed Exchange Ruy López Deferred'. The line is also known as the Steenwijk Variation because it was played in that city in the 5th match game between Euwe and H. Kramer, 1940.
If White defers capture for one move only, its: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6 (ECO 77). But Hooper & Whyld don't list/name it. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Exchange Variation Double Deferred, DERLD, that is, the Exchange Variation of the Spanish Opening deferred for two moves.
Oh no. I think we know the result :( Jishiboka1 ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) But let's not add it yet. I will start working on a game 2 Jishiboka1 ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
By transposition, it amounts to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.h3, which is certainly the Classical Variation for the first six moves. IIRC this is also implied by calling it D27. But not a big deal. Double sharp ( talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. 29.Rxd4 is such an obvious reply, any decent player would at least look at it even if on further examination they decided not to play it. Nepo admitted that he didn't consider it at all, which is a shocking oversight for a player of his level. Per C. J. S. Purdy, I was taught to always look at every check, every capture and every threat. If we can find enough sources that give it a "??" we should use them because I think it's fully justified. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I would like to end this debate with an agreed consensus, thus I have found several sources that use ?, but say "Blunder".
chess24.com ( https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ding-liren-pounces-on-blunder-to-win-game-4) says "After 27...Qh6 Ding spent just 42 seconds on 28.Qf3 and suddenly Ian plunged off a precipice with the move 28...Nd4?, played in under two minutes."
Thus the majority of the sources I have found call it "blunder" but only give a ?. So should we write he blundered with 28...Nd4? Jishiboka1 ( talk) 01:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
"Commentators stated that 29...Nxf5 was not a poor move on its own, but 30...Qf6 was what lost the advantage..."
That statement doesn't even make sense, Ding never held an advantage. Is there any better wording we can use? 9ninety ( talk) 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Per game, only one position should be displayed. Any more than that, it actually looks annoying. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Cause that's what happened. And it happens to every chess player, or any competitive sportsperson for that matter, at all levels. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not as a source in itself, but for the information which can possibly be sourced elsewhere. https://twitter.com/olimpiuurcan/status/1648623071530733568 MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The accounts FVitelli and opqrstuv on Lichess appear to be connected to Ding Liren's opening prep. The exact position after 12.h4 in game 8 appeared on the board in one of their games. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC) It's discussed in this Spanish language article: [1] MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Also discussed here: [2] MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes it loses, but so does 31...Qf8. You can't make a mistake in an already lost position, but you can try to complicate things and bluff your opponent. Chess24 and TWIC both give it "!?". Milan Dinic in his report for the FIDE website gives it both a "!" and a "?" so I count that as half a source. Point is it doesn't deserve a "?" just because it loses, because it was Nepo's best practical chance, engines be damned. I'd even give it a "!". MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
There are too many references to "commentators said", "was considered" etc in the game texts. Tighten it up. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I know the position was an important moment but it somehow ended in equality; maybe we should include 34...f5, the fatal blunder, instead; or include 2 positions, like game 6? Unknownwikipedian2023 ( talk) 09:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I chose 7 credible sources of annotations (chess.com, ChessBase, chess24, FIDE, lichess, USCF and TWIC) and compiled a list of all their annotation symbols. If 3 or more sources are giving it the same sign, that's the one I assessed as "consensus". If 3 or more sources are giving it some sign, I've tried to go somewhere in the middle. When in doubt, I'll lean towards not excessively criticizing a super-GM, cause who am I to do that? So based on this, the consensus annotations for game 1 are as follows: 7.Re1!?, 8.d4!?, 11...Bg4?!, 14.Nf5?!, 14...Ne6?!, 25...c6?!, 27.Qf4!, 29.Bd6?!, 31.f4?!. Want me to repeat this exercise for the other games?
And please all editors refrain from giving the players "??"s unless that's the clear consensus of the annotators. In particular don't do this for moves that miss a difficult to calculate win, like Ding's 32.Kd1 in the classic game 8, or Nepo's 27...Rag8 in game 12. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll be busy tomorrow while they're playing, so probably I won't be in time to input the moves during the tiebreak (although we will see; I might get some of the games, but most likely not all). Just posting this because I put them in for all the classical games. Double sharp ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The introductory section states:
"Ding Liren won £1.1 million ($1.4 million), 60% of the prize total. Nepomniachtchi won £900,000, 40% of the prize total."
But, according to the rules stated later in the article:
"The prize fund is €2 million. It would have been split 60% vs 40% between the winner and the runner-up had either player scored 7½ or more points in the classical portion of the match. As the match was tied after 14 classical games, the prize fund will be split 55% vs 45% in favor of the winner of the tiebreak."
So it appears that whoever included the first quoted passage was not familiar with the rules of the tournament.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:52e:7e69:ddb8:4a12 ( talk • contribs)
One sentence reads as follows:
"Dylan Loeb McClain of The New York Times ..."
But is he really (in 2023) "of" the New York Times?
The New York Times includes an article about chess perhaps once a year. I doubt that they would have a permanent employee (which is what "of" signifies) for just one article per year.
A news item involving World Chess Championship 2023 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I've only ever heard "Delayed Exchange Variation" whether it's on my 5 or 6. Delayed and deferred together just sounds dumb, I highly suspect that's a name invented by someone from wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 05:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
-- IHTS ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)DERLD, the 'Delayed Exchange Ruy López Deferred'. The line is also known as the Steenwijk Variation because it was played in that city in the 5th match game between Euwe and H. Kramer, 1940.
If White defers capture for one move only, its: 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6 (ECO 77). But Hooper & Whyld don't list/name it. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Exchange Variation Double Deferred, DERLD, that is, the Exchange Variation of the Spanish Opening deferred for two moves.
Oh no. I think we know the result :( Jishiboka1 ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC) But let's not add it yet. I will start working on a game 2 Jishiboka1 ( talk) 12:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
By transposition, it amounts to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 6.0-0 a6 7.h3, which is certainly the Classical Variation for the first six moves. IIRC this is also implied by calling it D27. But not a big deal. Double sharp ( talk) 10:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes. 29.Rxd4 is such an obvious reply, any decent player would at least look at it even if on further examination they decided not to play it. Nepo admitted that he didn't consider it at all, which is a shocking oversight for a player of his level. Per C. J. S. Purdy, I was taught to always look at every check, every capture and every threat. If we can find enough sources that give it a "??" we should use them because I think it's fully justified. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I would like to end this debate with an agreed consensus, thus I have found several sources that use ?, but say "Blunder".
chess24.com ( https://chess24.com/en/read/news/ding-liren-pounces-on-blunder-to-win-game-4) says "After 27...Qh6 Ding spent just 42 seconds on 28.Qf3 and suddenly Ian plunged off a precipice with the move 28...Nd4?, played in under two minutes."
Thus the majority of the sources I have found call it "blunder" but only give a ?. So should we write he blundered with 28...Nd4? Jishiboka1 ( talk) 01:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
"Commentators stated that 29...Nxf5 was not a poor move on its own, but 30...Qf6 was what lost the advantage..."
That statement doesn't even make sense, Ding never held an advantage. Is there any better wording we can use? 9ninety ( talk) 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Per game, only one position should be displayed. Any more than that, it actually looks annoying. KyuuA4 ( Talk:キュウ) 23:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Cause that's what happened. And it happens to every chess player, or any competitive sportsperson for that matter, at all levels. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Not as a source in itself, but for the information which can possibly be sourced elsewhere. https://twitter.com/olimpiuurcan/status/1648623071530733568 MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 11:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
The accounts FVitelli and opqrstuv on Lichess appear to be connected to Ding Liren's opening prep. The exact position after 12.h4 in game 8 appeared on the board in one of their games. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC) It's discussed in this Spanish language article: [1] MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Also discussed here: [2] MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes it loses, but so does 31...Qf8. You can't make a mistake in an already lost position, but you can try to complicate things and bluff your opponent. Chess24 and TWIC both give it "!?". Milan Dinic in his report for the FIDE website gives it both a "!" and a "?" so I count that as half a source. Point is it doesn't deserve a "?" just because it loses, because it was Nepo's best practical chance, engines be damned. I'd even give it a "!". MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
There are too many references to "commentators said", "was considered" etc in the game texts. Tighten it up. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 23:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I know the position was an important moment but it somehow ended in equality; maybe we should include 34...f5, the fatal blunder, instead; or include 2 positions, like game 6? Unknownwikipedian2023 ( talk) 09:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I chose 7 credible sources of annotations (chess.com, ChessBase, chess24, FIDE, lichess, USCF and TWIC) and compiled a list of all their annotation symbols. If 3 or more sources are giving it the same sign, that's the one I assessed as "consensus". If 3 or more sources are giving it some sign, I've tried to go somewhere in the middle. When in doubt, I'll lean towards not excessively criticizing a super-GM, cause who am I to do that? So based on this, the consensus annotations for game 1 are as follows: 7.Re1!?, 8.d4!?, 11...Bg4?!, 14.Nf5?!, 14...Ne6?!, 25...c6?!, 27.Qf4!, 29.Bd6?!, 31.f4?!. Want me to repeat this exercise for the other games?
And please all editors refrain from giving the players "??"s unless that's the clear consensus of the annotators. In particular don't do this for moves that miss a difficult to calculate win, like Ding's 32.Kd1 in the classic game 8, or Nepo's 27...Rag8 in game 12. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 04:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll be busy tomorrow while they're playing, so probably I won't be in time to input the moves during the tiebreak (although we will see; I might get some of the games, but most likely not all). Just posting this because I put them in for all the classical games. Double sharp ( talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The introductory section states:
"Ding Liren won £1.1 million ($1.4 million), 60% of the prize total. Nepomniachtchi won £900,000, 40% of the prize total."
But, according to the rules stated later in the article:
"The prize fund is €2 million. It would have been split 60% vs 40% between the winner and the runner-up had either player scored 7½ or more points in the classical portion of the match. As the match was tied after 14 classical games, the prize fund will be split 55% vs 45% in favor of the winner of the tiebreak."
So it appears that whoever included the first quoted passage was not familiar with the rules of the tournament.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:52e:7e69:ddb8:4a12 ( talk • contribs)
One sentence reads as follows:
"Dylan Loeb McClain of The New York Times ..."
But is he really (in 2023) "of" the New York Times?
The New York Times includes an article about chess perhaps once a year. I doubt that they would have a permanent employee (which is what "of" signifies) for just one article per year.