This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Judit Polgár article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 23, 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Dlb: Responding to User Talk:Bruce leverett#Kasparov touch-move controversy.
There is no actual controversy any more. By the time this article was written, about 10 years after the event, it was already well-known that Kasparov really had let go of the piece. The article is already saying so, and cites appropriate reliable sources:
No reader could mistake this for ambiguity.
You are objecting to the earlier use of the words "allegedly" and "reportedly". I assume the original author meant to convey that, at the time of the incident, there was some doubt as to what Kasparov had done, although by the time of writing, the doubt had long since been resolved. It looks to me reasonable to write the story this way.
If, on the other hand, this leads to confusion, then it may be desirable to rewrite, though it would be more complicated than just striking those two words. If you think that should be done, you wouldn't need to cite any additional sources, beyond the ones that are already cited. Bruce leverett ( talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
From the viewpoint of rules, there is no violation of the touch-move rule. There is a violation of the move completion rule. I want to point this out here, and then discuss if the article should reflect this.
I refer to the document FIDE_Laws_1993.docx, the FIDE Laws of Chess valid in 1994. It is from the CAA site; under Laws / Lays Historic.
There is no violation of article 7: "Article 7: The Touched Piece", more specifically section 7.2.a: "Except for the above case, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the board: one or more pieces of the same colour, he must move or capture the first piece he touched that can be moved or captured; or". The piece first touched was moved, and the move was not "illegal" (here illegal in quotes means "illegal" as defined in the rules) so the rule is satisfied.
It's a violation of article 6: "Article 6: The Completion Of The Move", more specifically section 6.1: "A move is completed: in the case of the transfer of a piece to a vacant square, when the player's hand has released the piece;".
Informally this is a take-back. As such my question. Why did this become famous as "touch-move" controversy, when in fact this was a take-back. The title now literally refers to the incident. But as such, it does not express what happened. I prefer the title "Kasparov take-back controversy" as it gives more information on what factually happened. This controversy is regarding a take-back, not a touch-move violation.
Otherwise, I think the article should mention, that the term "touch-move" which was chosen for the controversy is actually misleading for what happened. Dlb ( talk) 13:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There are sources which also question the role of the tournament controller. I also think this part is missing in the section. It is formally accessed a failure of Kasparov (not to follow the rules), the tournament controller (not to enforce the rules), Polgar (not to claim), in this order. The article should reflect this. For example NM Macon Shibut states: "But the real scandal is not Kasparov's disgrace, any more than we consider it an outrage if a football player throws an illegal block when the referee is not looking. The real scandal is the action of the tournament controller, who apparently had videotape evidence and did not forfeit Kasparov." I read that the incident is looked at by many people as an illegal move (illegal in the sense of FIDE rules), and legalized when not claimed. This is a complete misunderstanding of the rules. A take-back is not an illegal move; it is an irregular move. The arbiter must enforce that no irregularities happen. Polgar not claiming does not rectify the situation. Dlb ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The duration of knight release is stated as 1/25 of a second, based on the statement "But before little more than 1/25th of a second had elapsed (one video frame), he grabbed the piece, moved it to f8 and eventually won the game." in [1].
I have found the following two sources, contrary stating that the duration of knight release was one-quarter of a second. [2] [3]
These sources show that the article now is one-sided. With this information, the article should mention that there are different perceptions about the duration of knight release.
Here follows original research. The video "¿Trampa en ajedrez? Judit Polgár vs. Garri Kaspárov, Linares 1994, CHESS" on YouTube shows five different frames where the knight was released by my opinion. Also it is not physically possible to release and grab a knight again under a quarter of a second.
My point of view is, therefore, clear. I think the first source is wrong. Maybe it only looks at the frame, where the knight was "fully" released, so the hand stretched. But this is looking at the incident wrongly. The hand already loses the contact with the knight before, and this is what counts regarding the rules.
For this, I see three possibilities: Hopefully, with additional research, it can be found that one of the sources is wrong, so eliminating the problems with different sources making different statements. Or it is mentioned in the article that there is no consensus about the duration of the release. Or finally, the duration is removed, as being only of secondary importance, and only the fact is mentioned, that the knight was released. For this, I added one source. [4] I appreciate this getting discussed. Dlbbld ( talk) 17:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
A video revealed that Kasparov took his hand off the knight for exactly 1/4 of a second.
Video film stills confirmed that Kasparov's hand had quit the knight for about a quarter of a second.
In her first game with Kasparov, an infamous incident occurred in which he released a knight for an instant, put it back and moved it elsewhere!
References
any news articles to support this though?
Thewriter006 ( talk) 19:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know at which tournaments did Polgar achieve her GM norms? I know the last one was at the Hungarian championship, but what about the first two? I think the first one was Amsterdam in 1989. Can anyone confirm that? I assume she mentioned it in her book How I Beat Fischer's Record, if anyone has a copy. Thanks! Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What are everyone's thoughts on the name of the article? I would support moving the article to Judit Polgar, mainly because both of her sisters ( Susan Polgar and Sofia Polgar) don't have the diacritic in their article name. (And also because it's common usage not to use the diacritic. She uses both variants on her own website, but in the media no diacritic is probably more common). Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've looked for a Wikipedia guideline on this, but I can't find one. It may be significant that both her sisters use the anglicised forms of their forenames (as opposed to Zsuzsanna and Zsofia) whereas we don't call her Judith. (This may be connected with her being the one sister to have stayed in Hungary, but that's speculation.) If we are to anglicise her name then should we do so consistently? PatGallacher ( talk) 16:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know of a guideline either. I notice that we are using the diacritic for Richárd Rapport. Fortunately, redirects make it possible to find the article without knowing what accent to use, but there can be a lot of baggage attached to the question of the actual name of the article (e.g. Talk:Vasyl Ivanchuk#Requested move 18 April 2020). Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Kasparov's comments about circus puppets and making children is brought up in the article after a description of how he reacted to losing in Moscow and a sentence about him leaving immediately through a passageway. The source cited for these comments says they were made at least 8 years prior to that match, before their controversial game in Spain but not as an emotional reaction to any game he had with Polgár. It would seem they were introduced out of context to make Kasparov's loss sound less dignified. Article does word it as "had once described", but a RS should be provided to establish their relevance to the outcome of the game in Moscow. 5.151.172.160 ( talk) 09:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Might be worth noting that Veselin Topalov, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov were only FIDE World Champions. During the dispute between 1993 and 2006, the title was disputed with different World Champions crowned, and therefore they weren't undisputed World Champions like the rest in the list. I would also note that this distinction is made clear in the chess records article, so in my opinion there should at least be a note about this. Benthewikipedian ( talk) 01:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Judit Polgár article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 23, 2023. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Dlb: Responding to User Talk:Bruce leverett#Kasparov touch-move controversy.
There is no actual controversy any more. By the time this article was written, about 10 years after the event, it was already well-known that Kasparov really had let go of the piece. The article is already saying so, and cites appropriate reliable sources:
No reader could mistake this for ambiguity.
You are objecting to the earlier use of the words "allegedly" and "reportedly". I assume the original author meant to convey that, at the time of the incident, there was some doubt as to what Kasparov had done, although by the time of writing, the doubt had long since been resolved. It looks to me reasonable to write the story this way.
If, on the other hand, this leads to confusion, then it may be desirable to rewrite, though it would be more complicated than just striking those two words. If you think that should be done, you wouldn't need to cite any additional sources, beyond the ones that are already cited. Bruce leverett ( talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
From the viewpoint of rules, there is no violation of the touch-move rule. There is a violation of the move completion rule. I want to point this out here, and then discuss if the article should reflect this.
I refer to the document FIDE_Laws_1993.docx, the FIDE Laws of Chess valid in 1994. It is from the CAA site; under Laws / Lays Historic.
There is no violation of article 7: "Article 7: The Touched Piece", more specifically section 7.2.a: "Except for the above case, if the player having the move deliberately touches on the board: one or more pieces of the same colour, he must move or capture the first piece he touched that can be moved or captured; or". The piece first touched was moved, and the move was not "illegal" (here illegal in quotes means "illegal" as defined in the rules) so the rule is satisfied.
It's a violation of article 6: "Article 6: The Completion Of The Move", more specifically section 6.1: "A move is completed: in the case of the transfer of a piece to a vacant square, when the player's hand has released the piece;".
Informally this is a take-back. As such my question. Why did this become famous as "touch-move" controversy, when in fact this was a take-back. The title now literally refers to the incident. But as such, it does not express what happened. I prefer the title "Kasparov take-back controversy" as it gives more information on what factually happened. This controversy is regarding a take-back, not a touch-move violation.
Otherwise, I think the article should mention, that the term "touch-move" which was chosen for the controversy is actually misleading for what happened. Dlb ( talk) 13:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There are sources which also question the role of the tournament controller. I also think this part is missing in the section. It is formally accessed a failure of Kasparov (not to follow the rules), the tournament controller (not to enforce the rules), Polgar (not to claim), in this order. The article should reflect this. For example NM Macon Shibut states: "But the real scandal is not Kasparov's disgrace, any more than we consider it an outrage if a football player throws an illegal block when the referee is not looking. The real scandal is the action of the tournament controller, who apparently had videotape evidence and did not forfeit Kasparov." I read that the incident is looked at by many people as an illegal move (illegal in the sense of FIDE rules), and legalized when not claimed. This is a complete misunderstanding of the rules. A take-back is not an illegal move; it is an irregular move. The arbiter must enforce that no irregularities happen. Polgar not claiming does not rectify the situation. Dlb ( talk) 14:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The duration of knight release is stated as 1/25 of a second, based on the statement "But before little more than 1/25th of a second had elapsed (one video frame), he grabbed the piece, moved it to f8 and eventually won the game." in [1].
I have found the following two sources, contrary stating that the duration of knight release was one-quarter of a second. [2] [3]
These sources show that the article now is one-sided. With this information, the article should mention that there are different perceptions about the duration of knight release.
Here follows original research. The video "¿Trampa en ajedrez? Judit Polgár vs. Garri Kaspárov, Linares 1994, CHESS" on YouTube shows five different frames where the knight was released by my opinion. Also it is not physically possible to release and grab a knight again under a quarter of a second.
My point of view is, therefore, clear. I think the first source is wrong. Maybe it only looks at the frame, where the knight was "fully" released, so the hand stretched. But this is looking at the incident wrongly. The hand already loses the contact with the knight before, and this is what counts regarding the rules.
For this, I see three possibilities: Hopefully, with additional research, it can be found that one of the sources is wrong, so eliminating the problems with different sources making different statements. Or it is mentioned in the article that there is no consensus about the duration of the release. Or finally, the duration is removed, as being only of secondary importance, and only the fact is mentioned, that the knight was released. For this, I added one source. [4] I appreciate this getting discussed. Dlbbld ( talk) 17:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
References
A video revealed that Kasparov took his hand off the knight for exactly 1/4 of a second.
Video film stills confirmed that Kasparov's hand had quit the knight for about a quarter of a second.
In her first game with Kasparov, an infamous incident occurred in which he released a knight for an instant, put it back and moved it elsewhere!
References
any news articles to support this though?
Thewriter006 ( talk) 19:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know at which tournaments did Polgar achieve her GM norms? I know the last one was at the Hungarian championship, but what about the first two? I think the first one was Amsterdam in 1989. Can anyone confirm that? I assume she mentioned it in her book How I Beat Fischer's Record, if anyone has a copy. Thanks! Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 16:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
What are everyone's thoughts on the name of the article? I would support moving the article to Judit Polgar, mainly because both of her sisters ( Susan Polgar and Sofia Polgar) don't have the diacritic in their article name. (And also because it's common usage not to use the diacritic. She uses both variants on her own website, but in the media no diacritic is probably more common). Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 05:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I've looked for a Wikipedia guideline on this, but I can't find one. It may be significant that both her sisters use the anglicised forms of their forenames (as opposed to Zsuzsanna and Zsofia) whereas we don't call her Judith. (This may be connected with her being the one sister to have stayed in Hungary, but that's speculation.) If we are to anglicise her name then should we do so consistently? PatGallacher ( talk) 16:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know of a guideline either. I notice that we are using the diacritic for Richárd Rapport. Fortunately, redirects make it possible to find the article without knowing what accent to use, but there can be a lot of baggage attached to the question of the actual name of the article (e.g. Talk:Vasyl Ivanchuk#Requested move 18 April 2020). Bruce leverett ( talk) 18:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Kasparov's comments about circus puppets and making children is brought up in the article after a description of how he reacted to losing in Moscow and a sentence about him leaving immediately through a passageway. The source cited for these comments says they were made at least 8 years prior to that match, before their controversial game in Spain but not as an emotional reaction to any game he had with Polgár. It would seem they were introduced out of context to make Kasparov's loss sound less dignified. Article does word it as "had once described", but a RS should be provided to establish their relevance to the outcome of the game in Moscow. 5.151.172.160 ( talk) 09:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Might be worth noting that Veselin Topalov, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov were only FIDE World Champions. During the dispute between 1993 and 2006, the title was disputed with different World Champions crowned, and therefore they weren't undisputed World Champions like the rest in the list. I would also note that this distinction is made clear in the chess records article, so in my opinion there should at least be a note about this. Benthewikipedian ( talk) 01:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)