This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Is the British Chess Association the same organization as the English Chess Federation/British Chess Federation? Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a new version of my Windows program to make chess diagrams for Wikipedia. Go to my file download page, and it is the first program on the download screen, either download WikiChessDiagram.zip and extract the EXE file or download WikiChessDiagram.EXEC and change the extention to ".exe".
This is version 2.0 of the program and it has several enhancements and new features. It now has options to make small diagrams and to put them on the left. If you have a piece selected and drop it on the wrong square, clicking the square again (with the same piece selected) will remove the piece.
And now it will accept FEN input. Enter a FEN position and click "Generate from FEN". There is no error checking on FEN input, so an incorrect FEN can cause the program to bomb out.
Also, now instead of showing letters to stand for the pieces, it shows the same images as the actual diagrams in Wikipedia. For some reason, white dots and digits don't show up correctly on the image of the board, but they are correct in the generated diagram.
If you have and problems or questions, contact me. Bubba73 (talk), 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the {chess-stub} tag still used, since the project banner has Stub? An editor is adding them to articles, and I was wondering if it is worthwhile. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Behind this enigmatic name of thread, I would like to understand better the purpose of the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess#..._which_need_some_work of our project page. I mean, all articles apart from FA need some work, so why do we need a section ? This section will point out specific articles, but along which criteria ? SyG ( talk) 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but I think this is a really really bad idea. The most important reason is maintenance of this mutual watchlist. For a long time now i periodically synchronize the list with all articles in the category chess (recursive) and the WP:Chess template. This worked really well, but you would be surprised on how necessary this is. Every time, I have at least 20 differences (a lot of renamed articles, but also articles that got vandalized or had their chess category removed by accident, new articles, etc, etc) When we remove all the bottom class articles, there is no easy way for me to update the list or make sure all are chess articles have the template. In 6 months, I can promise, the list will hopeless out of date. Is there really one good reason to not include the bottom articles? If nobody likes to see them in the main index, how about at the end of the list in a separate section?
On another note, a lot of the bottom chess articles are not bottom at all in my book. Could someone give me a clear definition? Definitely not bottom are eg: Longest uncrossed knight's path, Bitboard, Chess on Yahoo! Games (I think this was the first article I created, although I think now it has no notability and should be removed from wp -- but if it is not chess related, what is it then? - same goes for Lego Chess), Chess symbols in Unicode (I would even give this mid importance). There is really no good reason to remove these articles from the index of chess articles. They are clearly chess related. I hope the compromise I suggested above (or some alternative) can be agreed on. Voorlandt ( talk) 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have a few dozen chess articles on my watchlist. I try to check every edit to one of those. When I have time, I look at "related changes" to the index and check for vandalism. I do this several times per day (on the average), and there is a lot of vandalism, and I can't catch it all. Articles such as Aleister Crowley, The Seventh Seal, and Beersheba that show up on related changes to the index. There is little chess content in these articles and I'd rather not have them show up for recent changes to articles in the index. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
← Per the discussion above, I have implemented the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Assessment/Bottom importance, which contains all the Bottom-importance articles and which is transcluded in Index of chess articles. SyG ( talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Capablanca said that a Q & N worked better together than a Q & B. The 1997 book Bishop vs. knight: the verdict agreed. However, somewhere I read that recent computer analysis said that they were about the same, but I can't remember where I read it. I think it was work of Larry Kauffman. Does anyone know of a reference for this? Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In chess and history of chess, we have conflicting sources. Was the bishop an elephant and a rook a chariot or the other way around? The article have said this and the Oxford Companion, the history book by Davidson, and the encyclopedia by Golombek agree. However, another editor has a reference from Bird and another one that have them reversed. Does anyone have references to help clear this up, perhaps H. J. R. Murray? Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created a new template, template:chess diagram svg. I did this specifically to provide icons for the Chaturaji article diagrams, but I have made it more general than that. The template will also function for chess diagrams in the normal format but uses the svg icons from commons instead of png. SpinningSpark 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The first cleanup listing is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Cleanup listing. This shows articles that need some sort of specific work. Elo rating system is in the most need. Bubba73 (talk), 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How many Grandmaster norms are required for a GM title? I thought it was three, but someone just changed it to two in that article. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten into a dispute on the Bobby Fischer talk page with 194x144x90x118 over this addition that I made to the section of the article about Fischer's anti-Semitism:
Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator. [citing David and Alessandra DeLucia, The Uncensored Bobby Fischer, 2009, pp. 160-62, 166.] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews." [citing DeLucia 2009, pp. 290, 292.]
194x144x90x118 vehemently objects to this, and has deleted it. He has offered various explanations, including:
(1)"Fischer was first and foremost a Chess genius not an anti semite and this article already sufficiently says all it needs to say regarding his alleged anti semitism, further more Fischer wasn't an anti semite he was an anti zionist which is a completely different thing."
(2) "If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?"
(3) "If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic."
Quale reverted the article, restoring my edit, but SarekOfVulcan re-reverted it. Evidently impressed by 194x144x90x118 's eloquence, he concurred: "At the moment, I agree fully. If the edit can be properly sourced, then there could be grounds for discussion."
I pointed out that DeLucia's new book was released days ago, and has accordingly not been the subject of a review other than the pseudonymous review of it [here http://www.chessgames.com/~ChessBookForum?kpage=15#reply385]. (Scroll up a bit to the two-part review by "Paris Attack". The comment by "FSR" is me.) I also pointed out that the chess historian (and co-author, with David Hooper, of the book The Immortal Capablanca) Dale Brandreth wrote of the two editions of DeLucia's prior book The Chess Library of David DeLucia: A Few Old Friends:
Among the treasure[s] depicted in this volume are the Paris Lucena Manuscript, the first edition Damiano, a flawless Carrera, the three editions of Saul (1614, 1640, 1672), the first edition Ruy Lopez, three different-color editions of the London 1883 tournament book (pristine copies), the Dubuque Chess Journal (with collation of this very hard-to-get complete run), St. Petersburg 1895 Tournament book, letters and scores of Alekhine, a commemorative envelope from Em. Lasker to his wife Martha from Cambridge Springs 1904, the first page of the Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament bulletins (the first tournament bulletins ever), extracts from several Lasker manuscripts (some on mathematics), several Lasker letters, a letter from Einstein to Lasker, Morphy letters, scoresheet, photos, and his chess board, Capablanca scoresheet, Capa's top hat, passport, and watch...and hundreds more extraordinary items. These two volumes are unique in the history of chess literature. I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice. [Emphasis added.]
I also noted that Edward Winter, in Chess Note 5323, called DeLucia's prior work "of incomparable quality" and "so stunning in terms of both production and content that we can only marvel at it". I would think comments by two respected chess historians that DeLucia's work is "of incomparable quality" and "I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice" ought to sufficiently answer the suggestion that he is not a reliable source. SarekOfVulcan, perhaps having since returned to his home planet, has not responded. I am about at the end of my rope dealing with 194x144x90x118. Does anyone else care to weigh in? Krakatoa ( talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Krakatoa, if you keep your cool as you have so far, this will eventually turn out OK. I know it's very hard when dealing with these sorts of disruptive and abusive users, but he is pretty well known to the admins at WP:ANI and they are not very sympathetic to him. It's also clear that he has a distorted view of Wikipedia including what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what is expected and required of contributors here. I think one of Wikipedia's failings is that admins are too slow to block editors like this one, but in this particular circumstance I'm confident that outcome will be all right. I don't even think you need to mount a particularly vigorous defense against laughable attacks such as these, although it sticks in the craw to not fight back as hard as possible. Quale ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this person notable: Martin Bryant (programmer)? The article is almost entirely about the chess and checkers programs he wrote. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:57, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Please check the two variations added to Open Game today. I didn't find any reference to them on the internet so I deleted them. They were added back and I added "fact" tags. Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the origin of the word is Italian (not Latin), so the ending in "i" makes sense. It means an "islander." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Isolated Pawn article contains this aside "... called isolani (it is not clear why this term is used rather than the singular form, 'isolanus', which is ironic considering that the pawn stands alone)", which seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to join this project in chess, so I can learn how to play chess better with my comrades. How does it do? Dr. Szląchski ( talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the Linares chess tournament and i've a couple of questions, do we have a standarised format for tournaments' crosstables? should a draw should be ½ or = in the table? and finally should the crosstables be in the main Linares chess tournament article or should the crosstables go into seperate articles for specific years like for example this one: Corus 2008 chess tournament. Loosmark ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Some sources say that the Italian Game is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. Others say that the Italian game is after 3... Bc5, which is also generally known as the Guioco Piano. But Chess Opening Essentials calls the above with 4. d3 the Guioco Piano whereas everyone else calls it the Guioco Piamisso (sp?). This book calls 4.c3 the Italian Game.
This has been discussed before (about what is the Italian), but this book seems to be at odds with everything else. To me, it makes sense for 3. Bc4 to be the Italian, to distinguish it from other White moves at this point, e.g. the Ruy Lopez and the Scotch. Then it can branch off into the Two Knights or GP, depending on Black's fourth move. Then the GP or Guioco Piamisso depending on White's fifth move. Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting. At first glance, Gufeld seems to be contradicting himself between his works with Stetsko and Kalinichenko. But looking more closely, he's just saying that after 3.Bc4 Bc5 (the Italian Game), there is also the possibility of the Evans Gambit - hence the Giuoco Piano is indeed 'one branch' of the Italian Game. It is therefore a small but important distinction that the Giuoco Piano and Italian Game are not 'identical' terms, just 'synonymous' terms (the words have different meanings - synonymous can mean "associated with"). Brace is therefore technically imprecise when he says the I.G. is "another name for G.P.". I can't comment on Sam Collins, as I havn't got his book, but much of what I'm saying appears to mirror your conversation with User:Moonraker12 on Talk:Italian Game when he said;
[ ... "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3... Bc5." which mirrors the comment I found on the GP page. I know that nowadays (though I don't know how widespread it is) they are used synonymously, but I'm also conscious that they are not (or were not) the same thing (3.Bc4 certainly isn't "Quiet"!), and I wanted to reflect that.] Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I might add that I also described I.G. and G.P. as one and the same thing at the top of this string. This is where the real confusion lies - it's a fine distinction; some may take the view that the Evans is just an offshoot of the G.P., in which case Gufeld & Stetsko were misleading and Brace is right. In truth, you'd probably have to study the ancient works to know precisely what was analysed after 3.Bc4 Bc5 and what properly constitutes the Italian Game. I'll be amazed if it's everything after 3.Bc4 though! Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Giouco Piano 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5. The Giouco Piano (known outside the English-speaking world as the "Italian Game") is a fifteenth-centuty opening that has stood the test of time. It's clear what the Italian game is and also that Giouco Piano and Italian Game are synonyms. Loosmark ( talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here are the various references cited in the discussion above, classified on whether they support the Italian Game being 3...Bc5 or being 3.Bc4. Please feel free to add any new reliable source you may find. SyG ( talk) 11:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5 | Support the Italian Game as 3.Bc4 | Others | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Le guide des échecs (Nicolas Giffard) calls 3...Bc5 the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano (synonyms) | Sam Collins: "3.Bc4 This move signals the beginning of the Italian Game" | Chess Opening Essentials calls 4.c3 the Italian Game, and 4.d3 the Giuoco Pianissimo |
2 | Brace | The Mammoth Book of Chess (Burgess) | The World Correspondence Chess Federation calls 3...Bc5 the Giuoco Piano, and 4.c3 the Italian Game |
3 | Hooper & Whyld | The Italian Game (T.D. Harding & G.S. Botterill) | |
4 | Gufeld & Kalinichenko | Gufeld & Stesko: "The G.P. (3.Bc4 Bc5) is a branch of the Italian Game" | |
5 | Keene & Levy | ||
6 | Modern chess openings | ||
7 | Le bréviaire des échecs (Xavier Tartakower) | ||
8 | Le guide Marabout des échecs (Frits van Seters) | ||
9 | Italian game and Evans gambit (Jan Pinski) | ||
10 | Die Italienische Partie: eine alte Eröffnung, wieder modern (Jakov B. Estrin, German translation, 1985) | ||
11 | |||
12 | |||
13 |
It would be good to know the context of some of those references. To say support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5 'Italian game and Evans gambit' does not necessarily mean ONLY the Italian game and Evans gambit. Such references may also support Italian Game as 3. Bc4. SunCreator ( talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Short comment on the previous discussion. I know WP:OR, but i have managed to reproduce one of the issues. The silly pawn vs 0-0-0 bug is real alright, it makes the computer (v6.0 build 6000) illegally move one of my pieces, making it seem that white had made three consecutive moves. -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Elo rating system article has had a "may need a total rewrite" template on it for some time. I have taken issue on the talkpage ( here) with a particular paragraph there which I think is flat out wrong, but I'd appreciate comment on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a deletion debate underway for Vanik Zakaryan. By secondary source coverage alone he doesn't seem notable, but he's also the president of the Chess Federation of Armenia and a vice-president of the World Chess Federation, so members of this project might be in a better position than me to judge his notability. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanik Zakaryan. Thanks, cab ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello all! I have expanded the ChessWorld article and maybe we could rerate it because of the changes. I do not think it is a Stub, more like a Start now. If anyone has any knowledge about chessworld, please help me continue to expand the article. BIONICLE233 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIONICLE233 ( talk • contribs)
Around here people use the term "board" to mean a chessboard and a set of pieces, e.g. "bring your board" when they mean to bring pieces also. Is this common (in orher areas)? Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that while the multiple citizenships of many world champions are listed Emmanuel Lasker does not have his USSR citizenship along with flag for such listed even though in body of work that citizenship is acknowledged and that he renounced his German citizenship. If Fischer's Iceland citizenship and flag listed , why not Lasker and his Soviet citizenship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 ( talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is Staunton listed with flag of England as opposed to flag of United Kingdom such as Zukertort after all the UK was established 1707 before birth of Staunton??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I signed this project up for this. Each month it will list the 1500 most popular articles, by the number of times they are read in the month. First results should be the first of September. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The information should be at Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages when it becomes available. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, the data can be seen here. Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of almost insignificant observations: (1) stalemate outranks checkmate and (2) the fifty-move rule slightly outranks threefold repetition, although the latter is much more common. Bubba73 (talk), 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Month | Laszlo Polgar (combined) | Howard Staunton |
---|---|---|
May | 1574 | 1254 |
June | 2208 | 1210 |
July | 1571 | 1263 |
August | 1642 | 1330 |
I have some concerns over the way this article has recently been greatly expanded by an editor who focuses only on Keene's 'dark side'. It seems that he has sourced just about every condemnation of Keene that can readily be found and then added it all in meticulous detail; even to the point of criticising a publisher's erroneous claims on the cover of a Keene book.
While I have no particular axe to grind on the article (and would even say that a lot of it is good work), the result is (roughly) a 400% expansion of the negative material, while his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all.
Is this a fair representation of Keene's chess career? Does the article continue to strike a balance? I'd say not, but I'd welcome the views of other Project Members. Brittle heaven ( talk) 11:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Private Eye is the most prominent satrical magzine operating in the UK. Kingpin is the most prominent satirical chess magazine operating in the world. Mig Greengard is one of the most prominent chess bloggers in the world. The idea that any of them would "fail" is a nonsense and I will put to them the suggestion that this so.
All references from all these magazines and everywhere else have been entirely scrupulously researched and all of them have been in the public domain, most for a very long time without receiving any legal challenge whatsoever. I would very much doubt that any other piece on chess in Wikipedia is more closely footnoted and more detailed than this one. I have also taken out a good number of factual errors (in the book list, for instance, or in the claim that Keene seconded Korchnoi in 1974, a claim that even Keene does not make). What you are proposing to amend is a piece that is presently many, many levels of accuracy and detail above which it has been before.
I'm afraid that there is a lot of controversy in Ray Keene's career and has been for thirty years and more. That is the nature of the career which the entry discusses. A great deal more could, in truth, be added, than is already in the piece. (If you do not believe this, say so - I can furnish you with a list.) It is not my job, I think, to be be concerned that
his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all
.If anybody else wishes to do that, they may of course do so. As far as I can see a large number of Keene's tournament victories and organisational achievements are already present - if there is material missing in that section, then by all means add it. But why relevant biographical material should actually be deleted, I cannot imagine.
Of course the real point may be that prior to my additions, the piece gave a very onesided views of what has been a very controversial career, and left a lot of things out. Well, a lot things have now been added to rectify that picture, and you now how a proper, properly-referenced, factually-accurate piece. I think this is what Wikipedia is for. Why anybody should complain about "way too much detail" is beyond me. The article is in immensely better shape than it was before. You are invited to compare both the number and density of footnotes - and for that matter, the layout - with what existed bfore. I say so myself, but it is vastly superior. Add positive detail if you wish, but otherwise, leave properly-researched material be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You say:
The idea that you would "put" anything to the sources you use also suggests that you are too close [to] the sources
Sorry, this is silly. I think that if longstanding publications, leaders in their field, are described as not being acceptable sources, then I think they might like to know that and other Wikipedia users might like to know that.
Is Private Eye, for instance, considered outside the range of proper sources in Wikipedia generally? If you have something that says so, then but all means provide it and the issue can be discussed more widely among the Wikipedia community. But I think its coverage of financial scandals is widely considered as good or better than any other in the UK. On the material on which it is cited, there could not be a much better source.
Kingpin, by the while, is a leading source for discussion of Ray Keene. No biography of the man would omit to read and cite it. But, you know, there are 47 references in there at present (not all of which I originated). A wide variety of publications are cited. This is good practice. Some of those publications aren't so fond of the subject of the piece. This does not make them unworthy of citation. That would be bad practice. (Incidentally, both Kingpin and the Eye were in the piece before I ever saw it. Oddly, they weren't "sources that would most likely fail" in all the long time that they were there before my editing. So please, don't anybody tell me they're suddenly out of line.)
A "good basis on which to edit a biography" is, actually, scrupulous research. This is what I have provided, which is something that was noticeably absent from large parts of the piece before I began to edit. I take strong issue at your use of the term "indiscriminate", given the standard to which my work has been compiled and the comparison with what went before it. "Indiscriminate" indeed. As I said, if you or anybody thinks that everything would could be put in, has been put in, then ask me for a list of what is not, at present, in there.
I'm afraid I don't think it's in order for you to speculate on what my personal opinion of Ray Keene may be since actually, that's not of muuch relevance - as you are surely aware, many Wikipedia articles are edited (and many or most biogaphies written) by people who have strong opinions on the subjects of the pieces they edit, and if this were not so they probably wouldn't bother. The actual issue is the strength of the information provided. Mine is scrupulous, something which could not be said of the material with which I started.
Yes, most of what I have added has been on the subject of controversies - though you may want to ask who put the book list on order, correcting the numerous errors - because that was precisely what was missing before. There was a section, but it was small, lacked detail and lacked mention of all but a very few incidents in what has been a controversy-filled career. I have added some of this detail: when I began to do so the section became unwieldy and so some of the major controversies (and they really were major) have separate sections to aid readability. I make no apology for doing things in greater detail than was the case before: detail is what helps people understand what issues were about.
But, like I say, there's been a lot of issues. I'm sorry about that, but it's not my fault. What would be my fault is if I decide to leave things out, or remove them, because somebody felt it as unfair to the subject that there had been so many. If a player had won a huge stack of tournaments and awards, but had never offended a soul, would we cut out half their achievements because we felt that the article was becoming too imbalanced in favour of the positives? Of course we would not. But this being so, it's absurd to complain because the biography of a deeply controversial individual....er...lists controversies.
A few weeks ago this article was mediocre, shoddy, inaccurate, poorly-referenced and shapeless. It is now sharp, organised, detailed, superbly-referenced and readable. This happened because somebody with subject knowledge, researching skills and knowledge of referencing went to work on it. You don't like it? I don't, so much, like putting huge amounts of work into improving a piece beyond all recognition and then having people say they don't like it because they think it's too critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked if there as a policy at Wikipedia of not using Private Eye as a source: the answer appears to be that you don't like it, i.e. there is no such policy. Again, let me ask you to show me otherwise if you think so. (Incidentally the claim that what the Eye publishes is "unverifiable" - which incidentally in the instances referred to is not true - would apply just as much to an article in any newspaper: why you think it's particular to the Eye escapes me.) If there is no such policy I suggest that one not be created here. -- Fewwords ( talk) 06:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't find the Brain Games "dull to read and of little interest to anyone except David Levy" and I'd be interested in your reasons for saying so. I think it's arguably the single most serious and controversial episode of Keene's career. The material on it is from more than one source, these sources are not obscure (the Chess Café, the Eye and so on) and have been in unchallenged circulation a long time: I cannot see how their reliability can be improved upon. The précis could not in my view be much shorter without robbing the reader of the opportunity to actually understand what the fuss was about.
And so on. The facts are that:
a. all the material that has been introduced is properly referenced ;
b. none of it is obscure ;
c. all of it is known to the subject of the article and the chess world in general.
All of it, to use the phrase above, is "relevant to the subject's notability". It was written and compiled with great care, hence the number of edits that have been made. My view is that there is nothing to be resolved except essentially groundless complaints that the article has too much critical material in it. Yes, there's a lot - but that is part and parcel of writing about a controversial figure. (I'll say again, there have actually been many more controversies than are mentioned in the piece.)
It is now a far more accurate, far more informative and far better referenced article than it was before - and this being so I see neither general nor specific grounds for making any substantial alterations. If anybody wishes to make specific alterations, by all means let them propose them. I have no objection to that nor any business having any such objection. If anybody wishes to introduce more positive material about the subject I of course have no objection whatsoever nor any business having any such objection. Provided it is properly sourced. But as it stands I'm not going to pretend that I agree to objections to what has, in fact, been carefully-compiled and scruplously-referenced material which I believe far exceeds the general standard of material appearing on Wikipedia. Fewwords ( talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As I've said more than once above, I don't really understand the "too much detail" complaint: you need a certain amount of detail to make the issues comprehensible to the reader. Moreover you do actually need to give some examples: you can't, for instance, say that Keene is accused of copying material from one book to another, or not checking facts, and not actually give some "for instances". One might as well say "Keene was credited with writing some good books earlier in his career" but not actually mention Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal, or Flank Openings. (Actually, come to think of it, where's Becoming A Grandmaster in the book list? I always liked that one.) -- Fewwords ( talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, much of your work is commendable, hence editors are perhaps reluctant to focus on specifics when, to some extent, it is the sum of the parts that is causing concern, rather than many of the individual parts themselves. Nevertheless, if concerns remain then they need to be addressed sooner rather than later and inevitably, it comes down to examining the individual parts. If we do not come up with a version that everyone can live with now, then future editors will doubtless prune the article without the benefit of this debate. Indications are, that fellow editors are currently not comfortable with the use of Kingpin, Private Eye and chess blogs in the context of controversial material. These publications have a light-hearted, dismissive, trivial and often anonymous way of poking fun at their subject - this may be okay for a newspaper or magazine who doesn't mind fighting the odd court case, but can hardly be construed as encyclopedic. As we are obliged by Wikipedia policies to remove sensitive material borne of 'questionable' sources without delay, then these items are prime candidates for removal, in my opinion. Ignoring any crossover for now, I would also argue that some items are simply not so notable as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, for example (i) a (Keene's Company) press release that erroneously talked about Chinese grandmasters when there are none - Keene would definitely have known this, so apparently it's someone else's mix-up and hardly noteworthy here (ii) Kramnik at BrainGames not getting paid straight away, but then getting paid later - again not much of a story, is it? (iii) Keene's profile copied from Wikipedia without acknowledgement - big deal, this is commonplace on the web, there are no copyright issues, so what's the fuss? (iv) Mohammed Amin saying that Keene doesn't keep his sponsors - a bit harsh isn't it? - he gets them - he lays on a big budget, top-notch chess event in an ever-changing economy where money is generally not available for chess - and the article can only criticise the fact that he doesn't keep his sponsors. Who does keep their sponsors? - they all move on when they realise they get very little return from chess (v) Keene describing himself as Mahler to Kasparov's Beethoven - that's a throwaway line in a spontaneous interview - what's notable about that? As well as these non-notables, I would also take issue with the duplication of material in the Ed. Winter passage … man without scruples … resigned from BCF … plagiarised Donaldson - these all appear elsewhere in the article and such duplication creates unnecessary imbalance and contributes to the feeling that a personal attack is being prosecuted here. Finally, as you appear to concede yourself, a few of Keene's books have, over the years, received some favourable reviews - off the top of my head - his treatises on Nimzowitsch, Stein and Petrosian as well as Flank Openings, were all well received at the time - probably, these have also been reviewed by notable people like IM John Watson, so why does the article feature only hostile reviews from the likes of Justin Horton (who he?) of Kingpin? Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the material added is very relevant to an author or an organiser of chess events. It is probably essential for a balanced article. However the quotations section is quite lame. It doesn't mention the excellent claim Ray Keene made about having been British Champion (circa) 23 times - Ray counted all the schools, team, age group categories. I think Private Eye and Kingpin are respectable sources, I am not sure about Mig Greengard myself. He is certainly a respected Journalist - but can we rely on a blog as a source? -- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Is the British Chess Association the same organization as the English Chess Federation/British Chess Federation? Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a new version of my Windows program to make chess diagrams for Wikipedia. Go to my file download page, and it is the first program on the download screen, either download WikiChessDiagram.zip and extract the EXE file or download WikiChessDiagram.EXEC and change the extention to ".exe".
This is version 2.0 of the program and it has several enhancements and new features. It now has options to make small diagrams and to put them on the left. If you have a piece selected and drop it on the wrong square, clicking the square again (with the same piece selected) will remove the piece.
And now it will accept FEN input. Enter a FEN position and click "Generate from FEN". There is no error checking on FEN input, so an incorrect FEN can cause the program to bomb out.
Also, now instead of showing letters to stand for the pieces, it shows the same images as the actual diagrams in Wikipedia. For some reason, white dots and digits don't show up correctly on the image of the board, but they are correct in the generated diagram.
If you have and problems or questions, contact me. Bubba73 (talk), 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the {chess-stub} tag still used, since the project banner has Stub? An editor is adding them to articles, and I was wondering if it is worthwhile. Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Behind this enigmatic name of thread, I would like to understand better the purpose of the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess#..._which_need_some_work of our project page. I mean, all articles apart from FA need some work, so why do we need a section ? This section will point out specific articles, but along which criteria ? SyG ( talk) 09:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry but I think this is a really really bad idea. The most important reason is maintenance of this mutual watchlist. For a long time now i periodically synchronize the list with all articles in the category chess (recursive) and the WP:Chess template. This worked really well, but you would be surprised on how necessary this is. Every time, I have at least 20 differences (a lot of renamed articles, but also articles that got vandalized or had their chess category removed by accident, new articles, etc, etc) When we remove all the bottom class articles, there is no easy way for me to update the list or make sure all are chess articles have the template. In 6 months, I can promise, the list will hopeless out of date. Is there really one good reason to not include the bottom articles? If nobody likes to see them in the main index, how about at the end of the list in a separate section?
On another note, a lot of the bottom chess articles are not bottom at all in my book. Could someone give me a clear definition? Definitely not bottom are eg: Longest uncrossed knight's path, Bitboard, Chess on Yahoo! Games (I think this was the first article I created, although I think now it has no notability and should be removed from wp -- but if it is not chess related, what is it then? - same goes for Lego Chess), Chess symbols in Unicode (I would even give this mid importance). There is really no good reason to remove these articles from the index of chess articles. They are clearly chess related. I hope the compromise I suggested above (or some alternative) can be agreed on. Voorlandt ( talk) 07:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I have a few dozen chess articles on my watchlist. I try to check every edit to one of those. When I have time, I look at "related changes" to the index and check for vandalism. I do this several times per day (on the average), and there is a lot of vandalism, and I can't catch it all. Articles such as Aleister Crowley, The Seventh Seal, and Beersheba that show up on related changes to the index. There is little chess content in these articles and I'd rather not have them show up for recent changes to articles in the index. Bubba73 (talk), 17:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
← Per the discussion above, I have implemented the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Assessment/Bottom importance, which contains all the Bottom-importance articles and which is transcluded in Index of chess articles. SyG ( talk) 14:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Capablanca said that a Q & N worked better together than a Q & B. The 1997 book Bishop vs. knight: the verdict agreed. However, somewhere I read that recent computer analysis said that they were about the same, but I can't remember where I read it. I think it was work of Larry Kauffman. Does anyone know of a reference for this? Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
In chess and history of chess, we have conflicting sources. Was the bishop an elephant and a rook a chariot or the other way around? The article have said this and the Oxford Companion, the history book by Davidson, and the encyclopedia by Golombek agree. However, another editor has a reference from Bird and another one that have them reversed. Does anyone have references to help clear this up, perhaps H. J. R. Murray? Bubba73 (talk), 03:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have created a new template, template:chess diagram svg. I did this specifically to provide icons for the Chaturaji article diagrams, but I have made it more general than that. The template will also function for chess diagrams in the normal format but uses the svg icons from commons instead of png. SpinningSpark 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The first cleanup listing is now available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Cleanup listing. This shows articles that need some sort of specific work. Elo rating system is in the most need. Bubba73 (talk), 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How many Grandmaster norms are required for a GM title? I thought it was three, but someone just changed it to two in that article. Bubba73 (talk), 20:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've gotten into a dispute on the Bobby Fischer talk page with 194x144x90x118 over this addition that I made to the section of the article about Fischer's anti-Semitism:
Fischer's library contained anti-Semitic and white supremacist literature such as Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and The White Man's Bible and Nature's Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen, founder of the Church of the Creator. [citing David and Alessandra DeLucia, The Uncensored Bobby Fischer, 2009, pp. 160-62, 166.] A notebook written by Fischer is filled with sentiments such as "8/24/99 Death to the Jews. Just kill the Motherfuckers!" and "12/13/99 It's time to start randomly killing Jews." [citing DeLucia 2009, pp. 290, 292.]
194x144x90x118 vehemently objects to this, and has deleted it. He has offered various explanations, including:
(1)"Fischer was first and foremost a Chess genius not an anti semite and this article already sufficiently says all it needs to say regarding his alleged anti semitism, further more Fischer wasn't an anti semite he was an anti zionist which is a completely different thing."
(2) "If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?"
(3) "If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic."
Quale reverted the article, restoring my edit, but SarekOfVulcan re-reverted it. Evidently impressed by 194x144x90x118 's eloquence, he concurred: "At the moment, I agree fully. If the edit can be properly sourced, then there could be grounds for discussion."
I pointed out that DeLucia's new book was released days ago, and has accordingly not been the subject of a review other than the pseudonymous review of it [here http://www.chessgames.com/~ChessBookForum?kpage=15#reply385]. (Scroll up a bit to the two-part review by "Paris Attack". The comment by "FSR" is me.) I also pointed out that the chess historian (and co-author, with David Hooper, of the book The Immortal Capablanca) Dale Brandreth wrote of the two editions of DeLucia's prior book The Chess Library of David DeLucia: A Few Old Friends:
Among the treasure[s] depicted in this volume are the Paris Lucena Manuscript, the first edition Damiano, a flawless Carrera, the three editions of Saul (1614, 1640, 1672), the first edition Ruy Lopez, three different-color editions of the London 1883 tournament book (pristine copies), the Dubuque Chess Journal (with collation of this very hard-to-get complete run), St. Petersburg 1895 Tournament book, letters and scores of Alekhine, a commemorative envelope from Em. Lasker to his wife Martha from Cambridge Springs 1904, the first page of the Cambridge Springs 1904 tournament bulletins (the first tournament bulletins ever), extracts from several Lasker manuscripts (some on mathematics), several Lasker letters, a letter from Einstein to Lasker, Morphy letters, scoresheet, photos, and his chess board, Capablanca scoresheet, Capa's top hat, passport, and watch...and hundreds more extraordinary items. These two volumes are unique in the history of chess literature. I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice. [Emphasis added.]
I also noted that Edward Winter, in Chess Note 5323, called DeLucia's prior work "of incomparable quality" and "so stunning in terms of both production and content that we can only marvel at it". I would think comments by two respected chess historians that DeLucia's work is "of incomparable quality" and "I lack enough superlatives to do these two volumes justice" ought to sufficiently answer the suggestion that he is not a reliable source. SarekOfVulcan, perhaps having since returned to his home planet, has not responded. I am about at the end of my rope dealing with 194x144x90x118. Does anyone else care to weigh in? Krakatoa ( talk) 06:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Krakatoa, if you keep your cool as you have so far, this will eventually turn out OK. I know it's very hard when dealing with these sorts of disruptive and abusive users, but he is pretty well known to the admins at WP:ANI and they are not very sympathetic to him. It's also clear that he has a distorted view of Wikipedia including what Wikipedia is, how it works, and what is expected and required of contributors here. I think one of Wikipedia's failings is that admins are too slow to block editors like this one, but in this particular circumstance I'm confident that outcome will be all right. I don't even think you need to mount a particularly vigorous defense against laughable attacks such as these, although it sticks in the craw to not fight back as hard as possible. Quale ( talk) 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this person notable: Martin Bryant (programmer)? The article is almost entirely about the chess and checkers programs he wrote. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:57, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
Please check the two variations added to Open Game today. I didn't find any reference to them on the internet so I deleted them. They were added back and I added "fact" tags. Bubba73 (talk), 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the origin of the word is Italian (not Latin), so the ending in "i" makes sense. It means an "islander." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The Isolated Pawn article contains this aside "... called isolani (it is not clear why this term is used rather than the singular form, 'isolanus', which is ironic considering that the pawn stands alone)", which seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjschumacher ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I want to join this project in chess, so I can learn how to play chess better with my comrades. How does it do? Dr. Szląchski ( talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the Linares chess tournament and i've a couple of questions, do we have a standarised format for tournaments' crosstables? should a draw should be ½ or = in the table? and finally should the crosstables be in the main Linares chess tournament article or should the crosstables go into seperate articles for specific years like for example this one: Corus 2008 chess tournament. Loosmark ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Some sources say that the Italian Game is 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4. Others say that the Italian game is after 3... Bc5, which is also generally known as the Guioco Piano. But Chess Opening Essentials calls the above with 4. d3 the Guioco Piano whereas everyone else calls it the Guioco Piamisso (sp?). This book calls 4.c3 the Italian Game.
This has been discussed before (about what is the Italian), but this book seems to be at odds with everything else. To me, it makes sense for 3. Bc4 to be the Italian, to distinguish it from other White moves at this point, e.g. the Ruy Lopez and the Scotch. Then it can branch off into the Two Knights or GP, depending on Black's fourth move. Then the GP or Guioco Piamisso depending on White's fifth move. Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting. At first glance, Gufeld seems to be contradicting himself between his works with Stetsko and Kalinichenko. But looking more closely, he's just saying that after 3.Bc4 Bc5 (the Italian Game), there is also the possibility of the Evans Gambit - hence the Giuoco Piano is indeed 'one branch' of the Italian Game. It is therefore a small but important distinction that the Giuoco Piano and Italian Game are not 'identical' terms, just 'synonymous' terms (the words have different meanings - synonymous can mean "associated with"). Brace is therefore technically imprecise when he says the I.G. is "another name for G.P.". I can't comment on Sam Collins, as I havn't got his book, but much of what I'm saying appears to mirror your conversation with User:Moonraker12 on Talk:Italian Game when he said;
[ ... "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3... Bc5." which mirrors the comment I found on the GP page. I know that nowadays (though I don't know how widespread it is) they are used synonymously, but I'm also conscious that they are not (or were not) the same thing (3.Bc4 certainly isn't "Quiet"!), and I wanted to reflect that.] Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I might add that I also described I.G. and G.P. as one and the same thing at the top of this string. This is where the real confusion lies - it's a fine distinction; some may take the view that the Evans is just an offshoot of the G.P., in which case Gufeld & Stetsko were misleading and Brace is right. In truth, you'd probably have to study the ancient works to know precisely what was analysed after 3.Bc4 Bc5 and what properly constitutes the Italian Game. I'll be amazed if it's everything after 3.Bc4 though! Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Giouco Piano 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5. The Giouco Piano (known outside the English-speaking world as the "Italian Game") is a fifteenth-centuty opening that has stood the test of time. It's clear what the Italian game is and also that Giouco Piano and Italian Game are synonyms. Loosmark ( talk) 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Here are the various references cited in the discussion above, classified on whether they support the Italian Game being 3...Bc5 or being 3.Bc4. Please feel free to add any new reliable source you may find. SyG ( talk) 11:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5 | Support the Italian Game as 3.Bc4 | Others | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Le guide des échecs (Nicolas Giffard) calls 3...Bc5 the Italian Game and the Giuoco Piano (synonyms) | Sam Collins: "3.Bc4 This move signals the beginning of the Italian Game" | Chess Opening Essentials calls 4.c3 the Italian Game, and 4.d3 the Giuoco Pianissimo |
2 | Brace | The Mammoth Book of Chess (Burgess) | The World Correspondence Chess Federation calls 3...Bc5 the Giuoco Piano, and 4.c3 the Italian Game |
3 | Hooper & Whyld | The Italian Game (T.D. Harding & G.S. Botterill) | |
4 | Gufeld & Kalinichenko | Gufeld & Stesko: "The G.P. (3.Bc4 Bc5) is a branch of the Italian Game" | |
5 | Keene & Levy | ||
6 | Modern chess openings | ||
7 | Le bréviaire des échecs (Xavier Tartakower) | ||
8 | Le guide Marabout des échecs (Frits van Seters) | ||
9 | Italian game and Evans gambit (Jan Pinski) | ||
10 | Die Italienische Partie: eine alte Eröffnung, wieder modern (Jakov B. Estrin, German translation, 1985) | ||
11 | |||
12 | |||
13 |
It would be good to know the context of some of those references. To say support the Italian Game as 3...Bc5 'Italian game and Evans gambit' does not necessarily mean ONLY the Italian game and Evans gambit. Such references may also support Italian Game as 3. Bc4. SunCreator ( talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Short comment on the previous discussion. I know WP:OR, but i have managed to reproduce one of the issues. The silly pawn vs 0-0-0 bug is real alright, it makes the computer (v6.0 build 6000) illegally move one of my pieces, making it seem that white had made three consecutive moves. -- Jokes Free4Me ( talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Elo rating system article has had a "may need a total rewrite" template on it for some time. I have taken issue on the talkpage ( here) with a particular paragraph there which I think is flat out wrong, but I'd appreciate comment on it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a deletion debate underway for Vanik Zakaryan. By secondary source coverage alone he doesn't seem notable, but he's also the president of the Chess Federation of Armenia and a vice-president of the World Chess Federation, so members of this project might be in a better position than me to judge his notability. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanik Zakaryan. Thanks, cab ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello all! I have expanded the ChessWorld article and maybe we could rerate it because of the changes. I do not think it is a Stub, more like a Start now. If anyone has any knowledge about chessworld, please help me continue to expand the article. BIONICLE233 18:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BIONICLE233 ( talk • contribs)
Around here people use the term "board" to mean a chessboard and a set of pieces, e.g. "bring your board" when they mean to bring pieces also. Is this common (in orher areas)? Bubba73 (talk), 01:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that while the multiple citizenships of many world champions are listed Emmanuel Lasker does not have his USSR citizenship along with flag for such listed even though in body of work that citizenship is acknowledged and that he renounced his German citizenship. If Fischer's Iceland citizenship and flag listed , why not Lasker and his Soviet citizenship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 ( talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is Staunton listed with flag of England as opposed to flag of United Kingdom such as Zukertort after all the UK was established 1707 before birth of Staunton??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.36.241 ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I signed this project up for this. Each month it will list the 1500 most popular articles, by the number of times they are read in the month. First results should be the first of September. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The information should be at Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages when it becomes available. Bubba73 (talk), 20:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, the data can be seen here. Bubba73 (talk), 16:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of almost insignificant observations: (1) stalemate outranks checkmate and (2) the fifty-move rule slightly outranks threefold repetition, although the latter is much more common. Bubba73 (talk), 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Month | Laszlo Polgar (combined) | Howard Staunton |
---|---|---|
May | 1574 | 1254 |
June | 2208 | 1210 |
July | 1571 | 1263 |
August | 1642 | 1330 |
I have some concerns over the way this article has recently been greatly expanded by an editor who focuses only on Keene's 'dark side'. It seems that he has sourced just about every condemnation of Keene that can readily be found and then added it all in meticulous detail; even to the point of criticising a publisher's erroneous claims on the cover of a Keene book.
While I have no particular axe to grind on the article (and would even say that a lot of it is good work), the result is (roughly) a 400% expansion of the negative material, while his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all.
Is this a fair representation of Keene's chess career? Does the article continue to strike a balance? I'd say not, but I'd welcome the views of other Project Members. Brittle heaven ( talk) 11:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Private Eye is the most prominent satrical magzine operating in the UK. Kingpin is the most prominent satirical chess magazine operating in the world. Mig Greengard is one of the most prominent chess bloggers in the world. The idea that any of them would "fail" is a nonsense and I will put to them the suggestion that this so.
All references from all these magazines and everywhere else have been entirely scrupulously researched and all of them have been in the public domain, most for a very long time without receiving any legal challenge whatsoever. I would very much doubt that any other piece on chess in Wikipedia is more closely footnoted and more detailed than this one. I have also taken out a good number of factual errors (in the book list, for instance, or in the claim that Keene seconded Korchnoi in 1974, a claim that even Keene does not make). What you are proposing to amend is a piece that is presently many, many levels of accuracy and detail above which it has been before.
I'm afraid that there is a lot of controversy in Ray Keene's career and has been for thirty years and more. That is the nature of the career which the entry discusses. A great deal more could, in truth, be added, than is already in the piece. (If you do not believe this, say so - I can furnish you with a list.) It is not my job, I think, to be be concerned that
his 'positive achievements' have not noticeably been expanded at all
.If anybody else wishes to do that, they may of course do so. As far as I can see a large number of Keene's tournament victories and organisational achievements are already present - if there is material missing in that section, then by all means add it. But why relevant biographical material should actually be deleted, I cannot imagine.
Of course the real point may be that prior to my additions, the piece gave a very onesided views of what has been a very controversial career, and left a lot of things out. Well, a lot things have now been added to rectify that picture, and you now how a proper, properly-referenced, factually-accurate piece. I think this is what Wikipedia is for. Why anybody should complain about "way too much detail" is beyond me. The article is in immensely better shape than it was before. You are invited to compare both the number and density of footnotes - and for that matter, the layout - with what existed bfore. I say so myself, but it is vastly superior. Add positive detail if you wish, but otherwise, leave properly-researched material be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You say:
The idea that you would "put" anything to the sources you use also suggests that you are too close [to] the sources
Sorry, this is silly. I think that if longstanding publications, leaders in their field, are described as not being acceptable sources, then I think they might like to know that and other Wikipedia users might like to know that.
Is Private Eye, for instance, considered outside the range of proper sources in Wikipedia generally? If you have something that says so, then but all means provide it and the issue can be discussed more widely among the Wikipedia community. But I think its coverage of financial scandals is widely considered as good or better than any other in the UK. On the material on which it is cited, there could not be a much better source.
Kingpin, by the while, is a leading source for discussion of Ray Keene. No biography of the man would omit to read and cite it. But, you know, there are 47 references in there at present (not all of which I originated). A wide variety of publications are cited. This is good practice. Some of those publications aren't so fond of the subject of the piece. This does not make them unworthy of citation. That would be bad practice. (Incidentally, both Kingpin and the Eye were in the piece before I ever saw it. Oddly, they weren't "sources that would most likely fail" in all the long time that they were there before my editing. So please, don't anybody tell me they're suddenly out of line.)
A "good basis on which to edit a biography" is, actually, scrupulous research. This is what I have provided, which is something that was noticeably absent from large parts of the piece before I began to edit. I take strong issue at your use of the term "indiscriminate", given the standard to which my work has been compiled and the comparison with what went before it. "Indiscriminate" indeed. As I said, if you or anybody thinks that everything would could be put in, has been put in, then ask me for a list of what is not, at present, in there.
I'm afraid I don't think it's in order for you to speculate on what my personal opinion of Ray Keene may be since actually, that's not of muuch relevance - as you are surely aware, many Wikipedia articles are edited (and many or most biogaphies written) by people who have strong opinions on the subjects of the pieces they edit, and if this were not so they probably wouldn't bother. The actual issue is the strength of the information provided. Mine is scrupulous, something which could not be said of the material with which I started.
Yes, most of what I have added has been on the subject of controversies - though you may want to ask who put the book list on order, correcting the numerous errors - because that was precisely what was missing before. There was a section, but it was small, lacked detail and lacked mention of all but a very few incidents in what has been a controversy-filled career. I have added some of this detail: when I began to do so the section became unwieldy and so some of the major controversies (and they really were major) have separate sections to aid readability. I make no apology for doing things in greater detail than was the case before: detail is what helps people understand what issues were about.
But, like I say, there's been a lot of issues. I'm sorry about that, but it's not my fault. What would be my fault is if I decide to leave things out, or remove them, because somebody felt it as unfair to the subject that there had been so many. If a player had won a huge stack of tournaments and awards, but had never offended a soul, would we cut out half their achievements because we felt that the article was becoming too imbalanced in favour of the positives? Of course we would not. But this being so, it's absurd to complain because the biography of a deeply controversial individual....er...lists controversies.
A few weeks ago this article was mediocre, shoddy, inaccurate, poorly-referenced and shapeless. It is now sharp, organised, detailed, superbly-referenced and readable. This happened because somebody with subject knowledge, researching skills and knowledge of referencing went to work on it. You don't like it? I don't, so much, like putting huge amounts of work into improving a piece beyond all recognition and then having people say they don't like it because they think it's too critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked if there as a policy at Wikipedia of not using Private Eye as a source: the answer appears to be that you don't like it, i.e. there is no such policy. Again, let me ask you to show me otherwise if you think so. (Incidentally the claim that what the Eye publishes is "unverifiable" - which incidentally in the instances referred to is not true - would apply just as much to an article in any newspaper: why you think it's particular to the Eye escapes me.) If there is no such policy I suggest that one not be created here. -- Fewwords ( talk) 06:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't find the Brain Games "dull to read and of little interest to anyone except David Levy" and I'd be interested in your reasons for saying so. I think it's arguably the single most serious and controversial episode of Keene's career. The material on it is from more than one source, these sources are not obscure (the Chess Café, the Eye and so on) and have been in unchallenged circulation a long time: I cannot see how their reliability can be improved upon. The précis could not in my view be much shorter without robbing the reader of the opportunity to actually understand what the fuss was about.
And so on. The facts are that:
a. all the material that has been introduced is properly referenced ;
b. none of it is obscure ;
c. all of it is known to the subject of the article and the chess world in general.
All of it, to use the phrase above, is "relevant to the subject's notability". It was written and compiled with great care, hence the number of edits that have been made. My view is that there is nothing to be resolved except essentially groundless complaints that the article has too much critical material in it. Yes, there's a lot - but that is part and parcel of writing about a controversial figure. (I'll say again, there have actually been many more controversies than are mentioned in the piece.)
It is now a far more accurate, far more informative and far better referenced article than it was before - and this being so I see neither general nor specific grounds for making any substantial alterations. If anybody wishes to make specific alterations, by all means let them propose them. I have no objection to that nor any business having any such objection. If anybody wishes to introduce more positive material about the subject I of course have no objection whatsoever nor any business having any such objection. Provided it is properly sourced. But as it stands I'm not going to pretend that I agree to objections to what has, in fact, been carefully-compiled and scruplously-referenced material which I believe far exceeds the general standard of material appearing on Wikipedia. Fewwords ( talk) 06:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fewwords ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As I've said more than once above, I don't really understand the "too much detail" complaint: you need a certain amount of detail to make the issues comprehensible to the reader. Moreover you do actually need to give some examples: you can't, for instance, say that Keene is accused of copying material from one book to another, or not checking facts, and not actually give some "for instances". One might as well say "Keene was credited with writing some good books earlier in his career" but not actually mention Nimzowitsch - A Reappraisal, or Flank Openings. (Actually, come to think of it, where's Becoming A Grandmaster in the book list? I always liked that one.) -- Fewwords ( talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, much of your work is commendable, hence editors are perhaps reluctant to focus on specifics when, to some extent, it is the sum of the parts that is causing concern, rather than many of the individual parts themselves. Nevertheless, if concerns remain then they need to be addressed sooner rather than later and inevitably, it comes down to examining the individual parts. If we do not come up with a version that everyone can live with now, then future editors will doubtless prune the article without the benefit of this debate. Indications are, that fellow editors are currently not comfortable with the use of Kingpin, Private Eye and chess blogs in the context of controversial material. These publications have a light-hearted, dismissive, trivial and often anonymous way of poking fun at their subject - this may be okay for a newspaper or magazine who doesn't mind fighting the odd court case, but can hardly be construed as encyclopedic. As we are obliged by Wikipedia policies to remove sensitive material borne of 'questionable' sources without delay, then these items are prime candidates for removal, in my opinion. Ignoring any crossover for now, I would also argue that some items are simply not so notable as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, for example (i) a (Keene's Company) press release that erroneously talked about Chinese grandmasters when there are none - Keene would definitely have known this, so apparently it's someone else's mix-up and hardly noteworthy here (ii) Kramnik at BrainGames not getting paid straight away, but then getting paid later - again not much of a story, is it? (iii) Keene's profile copied from Wikipedia without acknowledgement - big deal, this is commonplace on the web, there are no copyright issues, so what's the fuss? (iv) Mohammed Amin saying that Keene doesn't keep his sponsors - a bit harsh isn't it? - he gets them - he lays on a big budget, top-notch chess event in an ever-changing economy where money is generally not available for chess - and the article can only criticise the fact that he doesn't keep his sponsors. Who does keep their sponsors? - they all move on when they realise they get very little return from chess (v) Keene describing himself as Mahler to Kasparov's Beethoven - that's a throwaway line in a spontaneous interview - what's notable about that? As well as these non-notables, I would also take issue with the duplication of material in the Ed. Winter passage … man without scruples … resigned from BCF … plagiarised Donaldson - these all appear elsewhere in the article and such duplication creates unnecessary imbalance and contributes to the feeling that a personal attack is being prosecuted here. Finally, as you appear to concede yourself, a few of Keene's books have, over the years, received some favourable reviews - off the top of my head - his treatises on Nimzowitsch, Stein and Petrosian as well as Flank Openings, were all well received at the time - probably, these have also been reviewed by notable people like IM John Watson, so why does the article feature only hostile reviews from the likes of Justin Horton (who he?) of Kingpin? Brittle heaven ( talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the material added is very relevant to an author or an organiser of chess events. It is probably essential for a balanced article. However the quotations section is quite lame. It doesn't mention the excellent claim Ray Keene made about having been British Champion (circa) 23 times - Ray counted all the schools, team, age group categories. I think Private Eye and Kingpin are respectable sources, I am not sure about Mig Greengard myself. He is certainly a respected Journalist - but can we rely on a blog as a source? -- ZincBelief ( talk) 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)