![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Move text to Talk:ECF_grading_system. More relevant on article then a wider issue for WikiProject Chess. SunCreator ( talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Chess Club
You guys might be best equipped to help out on this article and the AfD. The article was made by a new user, too, so the article could do with some work. If the club is as big (most active in the US?) as the article states, then it definitely passes WP:N. Me t ty 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Eugenio Torre article probably has copyright problems. Two sections look like they are copied directly from another source. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need this any more, now we have the Article Alerts section which lists AfDs for us?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How do you pronounce the last name of Nicolas Rossolimo? My first guess was ross-o-LEE-mo but looking at it, maybe it is ro-SO-li-mo or something. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
At first I supported the merge of many pages to FIDE titles, including IM, FM, WGM, and WIM, but now I'm not sure. Your input is requested at Talk:FIDE titles#Merge maybe not a good idea. Quale ( talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Chess titles and FIDE titles may need to be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a redirect class but currently WikiChess does not include it, I think we should. There is a bot that can add them to pages see here. Reminded of this issue because of the recent merge of various articles into FIDE titles, all of which previous had Chess-WikiProject assessments and all now will become redirects. SunCreator ( talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In several articles I saw something like "he came equal 4th at ... tornament". If a player, for example, shared places from 4 to 10 and became 9th or 10th by tiebreak, can we still say that he came equal 4th? -- I Do Care ( talk) 06:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Kayden deserves to be bumped up to a mid importance level. He just became the North American Champion for all ages U-12, and recieved the title of candidate master. He is nearly top of the list in regular rating for all ages under 16, and has been at the top of the quick rated list for quite some time. He is also Utah Champion in nearly all categories, and all of this at the age of eleven! Can't Kayden be bumped up a level? Grand Mattster 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Budapest Gambit for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Budapest Gambit. This is both to get constructive feedback and to have a hint of how the article should evolve to get to A-class. It does not need to be a pain, even high-level reviews would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help ! SyG ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very happy to announce that Budapest Gambit has successfully undergone the GA-review, and now becomes a Good Article ! How long the road has been since I had a first glance on it, when it looked like that, more than three years ago. I am especially happy to know that an article on a chess opening can apply to Wikipedia standards, avoiding pitfalls like WP:NOTHOWTO. I would like to thank the other significant contributors to this article, notably Krakatoa, Bubba73, SunCreator and the reviewer Sasata. Cheers ! SyG ( talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The creation of the Queen and pawn versus queen endgame article made me think it would be a good time to review what endgame articles we have and which one we require. Below is the Chess endgame frequency table.
Percent | Pieces | Pieces | Covering article or comment |
---|---|---|---|
8.45 | rook | rook | Rook and pawn versus rook endgame extend article with pawns or create new Rook and pawns versus rook endgame? |
6.76 | rook & bishop | rook & knight | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and knight endgame? |
3.45 | two rooks | two rooks | No existing article. Create Two rooks versus two rooks endgame? |
3.37 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (same color) | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame? |
3.29 | bishop | knight | No existing article. Create Bishop versus knight endgame? |
3.09 | rook & knight | rook & knight | No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook and knight endgame? |
2.87 | king & pawns | king (and pawns) | No existing article. Create King and pawns versus king endgame? |
1.92 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (opposite color) | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame? |
1.87 | queen | queen | No existing article. Create Queen versus queen endgame? |
1.77 | rook & bishop | rook | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook endgame? |
1.65 | bishop | bishop (same color) | No existing article. Create Same-colored bishop endgame? |
1.56 | knight | knight | No existing article. Create Knight versus knight endgame? |
1.51 | rook | bishop | No existing article. Create Rook versus bishop endgame? |
1.42 | rook & knight | rook | No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook endgame? |
1.11 | bishop | bishop (opposite color) | Opposite-colored bishops endgame |
1.01 | bishop | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.97 | rook | knight | No existing article. To create? |
0.92 | knight | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.90 | queen & minor piece | queen | No existing article. To create? |
0.81 | rook | two minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
0.75 | rook | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.69 | queen | rook & minor piece | No existing article. To create? |
0.67 | rook & pawn | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.56 | rook & two pawns | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.42 | queen | pawns | Queen versus pawn endgame plus Queen versus pawns required? |
0.40 | queen | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.31 | queen | two rooks | No existing article. To create? |
0.23 | king & one pawn | king | King and pawn versus king endgame |
0.17 | queen | minor piece | No existing article. To create? |
0.09 | queen & one pawn | queen | Queen and pawn versus queen endgame |
0.08 | queen | two minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
0.02 | bishop & knight | king | Bishop and knight checkmate plus with pawn(s) required? |
0.01 | queen | three minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
Other endgame article we have are:
So are the above: requiring an article or already covered in some other articles(which) or not notable enough to have an article. SunCreator ( talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I'm not sure. Same-colored bishops endgame should be doable. Some of the others have so many different possible permutations and/or are so lightly covered in the literature (I've never seen a book on two rooks versus two rooks endings, for instance, although Endgame Artillery covers various combinations of endings with queens and rooks) that they wouldn't make for good articles. Krakatoa ( talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Chess tournament has been nominated as a Good Article. If you are able to review please do so. 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of changing the Redirect for Positional chess from Glossary of chess#P to Chess strategy some day, then putting in a sentence or two in the Chess strategy introductory section saying that positional chess or play is a style of play involving chess strategy in addition to chess tactics. Does anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Currently I see no article on Positional play, Positional play (chess), or Chess positional play. H Padleckas ( talk) 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have found that this Chess Wikia site has become inactive. Maybe we could do something with it. A benefit of a site like this is that not all the English Wikipedia rules necessarily have to be followed. For example, we could put in our own or unpublished games in there. Also, notability and "no original research" requirements may not have to be as strictly enforced. H Padleckas ( talk) 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I added Cleanup listing to the '... which need some work' section. What prompted this was a realisation that there is more articles flagged for cleanup in the Good articles, Top-importance articles and High-importance articles then there was the previous month. SunCreator ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like players playing the Boungcloud Attack are usually not very serious...
1. e4 e5 2. Ke2 Ba3 3. bxa3 Ke7 4. Nf3 Ke6 5. Nxe5 Kxe5 6. f4+ Kxf4 7. g3+ Kxe4 8. d3+ Kd4 9. Bf4 Kc5 10. Nc3 Kb6 11. Rb1+ Ka5 12. Na4 Kxa4 13. Rb4+ Kxa3 14. Rb3+ Kxa2 15. Rb2+ Kxb2 16. Qb1+ Kxb1 17. Bc1 Kxc1 18. Kf3 Kxc2 19. Bg2 Kxd3 20. Rd1+ Kc2 21. Rd2+ Kxd2 22. Bf1 Ke1 23. h4 Kxf1 24. Kg4 Kg2 25. Kf5 Kxg3 26. Ke4 Kxh4 0-1
231 91 Pa ( talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
May all your Halloween Gambit's be a success! SunCreator ( talk) 00:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Three poorly versed in chess wikipedians actively attacking the List of chess openings named after animals article and want to delete it. Members of WikiProject Chess not even try to save the article. If this continues, today we will lost List of chess openings named after animals, tomorrow List of chess players and after tomorrow Chess article. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"Animal rights" successfully defended. Thank you all for your support. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
One change is needed in the External links section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Golubev:
"Mikhail Golubev's Chess Page" (was at http://www.geocities.com/mikhail_golubev) is now at http://mikhailgolubev.wordpress.com/
--- Also, about rating performances, I checked in the Mega Database 2009, my best performances were: Bethune 2002: 6,5/7, Perf. 2768 Karvina 1992/93: 8/9 Perf. 2691 Yalta 1996: 8,5/11 Perf. 2663 Berlin 1993: 7/9 Perf. 2662 ---
Thanks in advance, GM Mikhail Golubev gmi@europe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail golubev ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Have found an image for Ernst Grünfeld here. Can we use this, and if so how? SunCreator ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Chess to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) IM Purdy was a well-respected writer and a decent player, but I have a hard time believing that he warrants being two importance classes above fellow Australian (and GM) Ian Rogers or New Zealanders GM Murray Chandler and IM Robert Wade, all of whom are Low-Importance. Also, very strong grandmasters like Ljubomir Ljubojević (once ranked No. 3 in the world after Kasparov and Karpov), Ulf Andersson (also one of the world's top players, ranked as high as No. 4 in the world; one of the best endgame players in history; he later branched out into correspondence chess and became the world's highest-rated correspondence player), and Robert Hübner (another super-GM, who in 1983 missed challenging Kasparov in the Candidates semi-finals only by the spin of a roulette wheel) are only Mid-Importance. Can anyone claim with a straight face that Purdy should be in a higher category than them? I agree that it is very hard to support more than Mid-Importance for Correspondence World Champions. Krakatoa ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Max Pomeranc was the actor in Searching for Bobby Fischer and was in the top 100 players in the USCF for his age. He is listed as Low importance. I think he should be bottom. Any input? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Borg Defense article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Borg Defense. 231 91 Pa ( chat me!) 07:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on Bobby Fischer on and off for years, and think that it can be raised to GA status with a little more work. What does everyone think? Krakatoa ( talk) 09:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there a standard way of recording half-points in chess-related articles? I've seen quite a few with (eg) XYZ scored 8.5/13, but I personally prefer the look of 8½/13. Not a big deal but just something I was wondering about. Fletch79 ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Chess_position has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
SunCreator (
talk)
00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What are opinions about Alexandra Obolentseva? It was created by a single-purpose account. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
George H. D. Gossip (recently nominated for Today's featured article) uses the format of alternating images left and right. I added another photograph, with the result that I have to flip some images from left to right, and vice versa, to maintain the alternation. In the last section, there are two diagrams on the right, followed further down in the section by two diagrams on the left. I have tried to flip them (putting the right diagrams on the left, and the left diagrams on the right). Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to do this. Can someone more technically adept than I help with this? Thanks! Krakatoa ( talk) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why we need to assess articles by quality: thus becomes clear which of them should be improved, but I absolutely do not understand why we need to classify articles by "top" or "low" importantce". A grandmaster, who devoted all his life to chess, would be disheartened to know that Wikipedia consider him as low important. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 05:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Chess players like Vladimir Alatortsev, Lev Alburt, Nana Alexandria, Vladimir Bagirov, Elisabeth Bykova (!!!), Murray Chandler, Larry Christiansen, Victor Ciocâltea and many others are rated as Low-Important. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
On the Zugzwang talk page a user suggests putting FEN with the diagrams. Of course, if we do it there, we should do it in many places. It is not a bad idea but it would be a lot of work. What do you think? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't even know such a thing as Wikpedia books existed. SunCreator ( talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
K. K. Karanja may have an edit war starting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.193.40 ( talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Alexander Alekhine article says "In 1941, he ... won a mini-match with Benito Lopez Esnaola in Vitoria". Problem is, it doesn't say which Vitoria (surely it's the one in Spain, but I don't want to guess). I've searched the web and can't find anything. Could someone here answer this for me? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this: Canadian Chess Grandmasters There doesn't seem to be a great deal of point to the article, and the information it contains is almost all in the list of chess grandmasters article. Any thoughts as to whether it should be deleted? Fletch79 ( talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
First post on a discussion page! I would like to suggest an addition to the United States Chess League page.
Prior to the creation of the United States Chess League in 2005, a previous attempt to start a United States chess league occurred back in 1976, with the formation of the "National Chess League". 9 teams participated, finishing in the following order
1. Washington Plumbers 2. New York Threats 3. Cleveland Kinghunters 4. San Francisco Dragons 5. Los Angeles Stauntons 6. Miama Capablancas 7. Chicago Prairie Dogs 8. Boston 64s 9. Houston Helpmates
In the pre-Internet era, moves were made by phone calls.
The league lasted up the late 1970's, but I have no other information
GrahamClayton ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at David and Goliath mate and Damiano's bishop mate and tell me if you think these are notable enough to be worth an article ? I would suggest to delete the former and merge the latter in Damiano's mate. SyG ( talk) 16:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. When I added the Swallow's tail mate I was a bit uncertain as to how it was most commonly phrased. Schiller listed it as "Swallows-Tail mate", while other sources I saw listed it as "Swallowstail mate", "Swallow's tail mate", and "Swallow's mate". I used "Swallow's tail mate" though since that seemed to be the most commonly used. Chhe ( talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the correct translation is 64 - Chess Review. -- I Do Care ( talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Round-robin tournament and Swiss-system tournament have been removed from this project and added to the sports and to the games projects. Do you agree with this? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Zoran Lazetich - Is he notable enough? -- MrsHudson ( talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I added Bogart because he was a chess player (expert level it is said) and organized tournaments. I added it to the Bottom importance category when I thought they would be articles that had something about chess but would not be in the chess project. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Bogart has a section with two paragraphs about chess. However, I would be in favor of removing from the project most of the articles about people for whom the chess content is a small part of their bio, for instance
and probalbly
And although Marcel Duchamp was primarily an artist, I think his chess contributions are notable enough to keep his article in the project.
I'm also in favor of removing art and litt things that have no real chess content, e.g.
I'm also in favor of removing puzzles and problems that refer to chess pieces but otherwise have no chess content, e.g.
And also
I've made some edits to one of the {{ chess diagram}} templates to try and improve it's accessibility by setting the alt text to better values. The code is at User:H2g2bob/chess diagram small, and I've also got User:H2g2bob/chess diagram test case to compare with the normal version.
They should look identical unless you've disabled images, are using a screen reader or doing some other magic. But in lynx, the start is displayed as:
Start of chess board. a8 black rook. d8 black queen. f8 black rook. g8 black king. a7 black pawn. b7 black pawn. e7 black pawn. f7 black pawn. g7 black bishop. h7 black pawn.
rather than the current template's:
Chess zhor 22.png Chess zver 22.png a8 rd b8 c8 d8 qd e8 f8 rd g8 kd h8 Chess zver 22.png a7 pd b7 pd c7 d7 e7 pd f7 pd g7 bd h7 pd
I've only done "chess diagram small" so far, but I'm willing to do the other templates if it looks like a good idea. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Recently there have been a few edits to Four Knights Game and Halloween Gambit which I feel cast the knight sacrifice in a better light than what published theory holds. Some of the things which worry me are:
Even Tim Krabbe's article A breeze in the sleepy Four Knights Game which interviews some of the players behind playing it acknowledge that: "objectively, after 4.Nxe5, White is probably lost". Personally, I am also very sceptical of the line's ultimate soundness, because if this were a gambit White could play with confidence that it will stand up to a sturdy Black defense, we would be seeing this gambit at 2600+ level GM tournaments, but we don't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I proposed that George H. D. Gossip be added to the list of requests for Today's featured article. It has a respectable three "points" for being today's featured article on December 6: one point because December 6 is Gossip's birthday, and two points because no similar article (i.e., no article related to chess, or any other board game for that matter) has been today's featured article within six months of the requested date. George H. D. Gossip is the only chess-related Featured Article that has not been on the main page. The others - Chess, The Turk, and First-move advantage in chess - have been. Krakatoa ( talk) 08:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) It has been approved and will appear on the Main Page on December 6 - i.e., beginning less than a hour and twenty minutes from now! Krakatoa ( talk) 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of editing on the London Chess Classic article, and wanted to get some advice from this WikiProject on how best to update it tomorrow, when the tournament finishes. If possible, I'd like to bring it up to a standard good enough for an 'in the news' entry (hopefully the result will be covered by the mainstream media in London and the UK). What I was thinking was more photos (I will be there tomorrow and will try and take some suitable pictures), and a results table, and lots more that can be added. Maybe include the game that wins the tournament best game prize? But I'm coming here for advice, either here or on the article talk page, on how best to update and expand this sort of article. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:59, 15 December 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
Move text to Talk:ECF_grading_system. More relevant on article then a wider issue for WikiProject Chess. SunCreator ( talk) 13:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Chess Club
You guys might be best equipped to help out on this article and the AfD. The article was made by a new user, too, so the article could do with some work. If the club is as big (most active in the US?) as the article states, then it definitely passes WP:N. Me t ty 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Eugenio Torre article probably has copyright problems. Two sections look like they are copied directly from another source. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we really need this any more, now we have the Article Alerts section which lists AfDs for us?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
How do you pronounce the last name of Nicolas Rossolimo? My first guess was ross-o-LEE-mo but looking at it, maybe it is ro-SO-li-mo or something. Bubba73 (talk), 02:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
At first I supported the merge of many pages to FIDE titles, including IM, FM, WGM, and WIM, but now I'm not sure. Your input is requested at Talk:FIDE titles#Merge maybe not a good idea. Quale ( talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Chess titles and FIDE titles may need to be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a redirect class but currently WikiChess does not include it, I think we should. There is a bot that can add them to pages see here. Reminded of this issue because of the recent merge of various articles into FIDE titles, all of which previous had Chess-WikiProject assessments and all now will become redirects. SunCreator ( talk) 23:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
In several articles I saw something like "he came equal 4th at ... tornament". If a player, for example, shared places from 4 to 10 and became 9th or 10th by tiebreak, can we still say that he came equal 4th? -- I Do Care ( talk) 06:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe that Kayden deserves to be bumped up to a mid importance level. He just became the North American Champion for all ages U-12, and recieved the title of candidate master. He is nearly top of the list in regular rating for all ages under 16, and has been at the top of the quick rated list for quite some time. He is also Utah Champion in nearly all categories, and all of this at the age of eleven! Can't Kayden be bumped up a level? Grand Mattster 20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Budapest Gambit for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Review/Budapest Gambit. This is both to get constructive feedback and to have a hint of how the article should evolve to get to A-class. It does not need to be a pain, even high-level reviews would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help ! SyG ( talk) 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I am very happy to announce that Budapest Gambit has successfully undergone the GA-review, and now becomes a Good Article ! How long the road has been since I had a first glance on it, when it looked like that, more than three years ago. I am especially happy to know that an article on a chess opening can apply to Wikipedia standards, avoiding pitfalls like WP:NOTHOWTO. I would like to thank the other significant contributors to this article, notably Krakatoa, Bubba73, SunCreator and the reviewer Sasata. Cheers ! SyG ( talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The creation of the Queen and pawn versus queen endgame article made me think it would be a good time to review what endgame articles we have and which one we require. Below is the Chess endgame frequency table.
Percent | Pieces | Pieces | Covering article or comment |
---|---|---|---|
8.45 | rook | rook | Rook and pawn versus rook endgame extend article with pawns or create new Rook and pawns versus rook endgame? |
6.76 | rook & bishop | rook & knight | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and knight endgame? |
3.45 | two rooks | two rooks | No existing article. Create Two rooks versus two rooks endgame? |
3.37 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (same color) | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame? |
3.29 | bishop | knight | No existing article. Create Bishop versus knight endgame? |
3.09 | rook & knight | rook & knight | No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook and knight endgame? |
2.87 | king & pawns | king (and pawns) | No existing article. Create King and pawns versus king endgame? |
1.92 | rook & bishop | rook & bishop (opposite color) | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook and bishop endgame? |
1.87 | queen | queen | No existing article. Create Queen versus queen endgame? |
1.77 | rook & bishop | rook | No existing article. Create Rook and bishop versus rook endgame? |
1.65 | bishop | bishop (same color) | No existing article. Create Same-colored bishop endgame? |
1.56 | knight | knight | No existing article. Create Knight versus knight endgame? |
1.51 | rook | bishop | No existing article. Create Rook versus bishop endgame? |
1.42 | rook & knight | rook | No existing article. Create Rook and knight versus rook endgame? |
1.11 | bishop | bishop (opposite color) | Opposite-colored bishops endgame |
1.01 | bishop | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.97 | rook | knight | No existing article. To create? |
0.92 | knight | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.90 | queen & minor piece | queen | No existing article. To create? |
0.81 | rook | two minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
0.75 | rook | pawns | No existing article. To create? |
0.69 | queen | rook & minor piece | No existing article. To create? |
0.67 | rook & pawn | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.56 | rook & two pawns | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.42 | queen | pawns | Queen versus pawn endgame plus Queen versus pawns required? |
0.40 | queen | rook | No existing article. To create? |
0.31 | queen | two rooks | No existing article. To create? |
0.23 | king & one pawn | king | King and pawn versus king endgame |
0.17 | queen | minor piece | No existing article. To create? |
0.09 | queen & one pawn | queen | Queen and pawn versus queen endgame |
0.08 | queen | two minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
0.02 | bishop & knight | king | Bishop and knight checkmate plus with pawn(s) required? |
0.01 | queen | three minor pieces | No existing article. To create? |
Other endgame article we have are:
So are the above: requiring an article or already covered in some other articles(which) or not notable enough to have an article. SunCreator ( talk) 22:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I'm not sure. Same-colored bishops endgame should be doable. Some of the others have so many different possible permutations and/or are so lightly covered in the literature (I've never seen a book on two rooks versus two rooks endings, for instance, although Endgame Artillery covers various combinations of endings with queens and rooks) that they wouldn't make for good articles. Krakatoa ( talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Chess tournament has been nominated as a Good Article. If you are able to review please do so. 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of changing the Redirect for Positional chess from Glossary of chess#P to Chess strategy some day, then putting in a sentence or two in the Chess strategy introductory section saying that positional chess or play is a style of play involving chess strategy in addition to chess tactics. Does anybody have any thoughts on this matter? Currently I see no article on Positional play, Positional play (chess), or Chess positional play. H Padleckas ( talk) 05:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have found that this Chess Wikia site has become inactive. Maybe we could do something with it. A benefit of a site like this is that not all the English Wikipedia rules necessarily have to be followed. For example, we could put in our own or unpublished games in there. Also, notability and "no original research" requirements may not have to be as strictly enforced. H Padleckas ( talk) 21:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I added Cleanup listing to the '... which need some work' section. What prompted this was a realisation that there is more articles flagged for cleanup in the Good articles, Top-importance articles and High-importance articles then there was the previous month. SunCreator ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like players playing the Boungcloud Attack are usually not very serious...
1. e4 e5 2. Ke2 Ba3 3. bxa3 Ke7 4. Nf3 Ke6 5. Nxe5 Kxe5 6. f4+ Kxf4 7. g3+ Kxe4 8. d3+ Kd4 9. Bf4 Kc5 10. Nc3 Kb6 11. Rb1+ Ka5 12. Na4 Kxa4 13. Rb4+ Kxa3 14. Rb3+ Kxa2 15. Rb2+ Kxb2 16. Qb1+ Kxb1 17. Bc1 Kxc1 18. Kf3 Kxc2 19. Bg2 Kxd3 20. Rd1+ Kc2 21. Rd2+ Kxd2 22. Bf1 Ke1 23. h4 Kxf1 24. Kg4 Kg2 25. Kf5 Kxg3 26. Ke4 Kxh4 0-1
231 91 Pa ( talk) 13:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
May all your Halloween Gambit's be a success! SunCreator ( talk) 00:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Three poorly versed in chess wikipedians actively attacking the List of chess openings named after animals article and want to delete it. Members of WikiProject Chess not even try to save the article. If this continues, today we will lost List of chess openings named after animals, tomorrow List of chess players and after tomorrow Chess article. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
"Animal rights" successfully defended. Thank you all for your support. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 13:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello.
One change is needed in the External links section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Golubev:
"Mikhail Golubev's Chess Page" (was at http://www.geocities.com/mikhail_golubev) is now at http://mikhailgolubev.wordpress.com/
--- Also, about rating performances, I checked in the Mega Database 2009, my best performances were: Bethune 2002: 6,5/7, Perf. 2768 Karvina 1992/93: 8/9 Perf. 2691 Yalta 1996: 8,5/11 Perf. 2663 Berlin 1993: 7/9 Perf. 2662 ---
Thanks in advance, GM Mikhail Golubev gmi@europe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhail golubev ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Have found an image for Ernst Grünfeld here. Can we use this, and if so how? SunCreator ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Chess to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 19:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) IM Purdy was a well-respected writer and a decent player, but I have a hard time believing that he warrants being two importance classes above fellow Australian (and GM) Ian Rogers or New Zealanders GM Murray Chandler and IM Robert Wade, all of whom are Low-Importance. Also, very strong grandmasters like Ljubomir Ljubojević (once ranked No. 3 in the world after Kasparov and Karpov), Ulf Andersson (also one of the world's top players, ranked as high as No. 4 in the world; one of the best endgame players in history; he later branched out into correspondence chess and became the world's highest-rated correspondence player), and Robert Hübner (another super-GM, who in 1983 missed challenging Kasparov in the Candidates semi-finals only by the spin of a roulette wheel) are only Mid-Importance. Can anyone claim with a straight face that Purdy should be in a higher category than them? I agree that it is very hard to support more than Mid-Importance for Correspondence World Champions. Krakatoa ( talk) 10:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Max Pomeranc was the actor in Searching for Bobby Fischer and was in the top 100 players in the USCF for his age. He is listed as Low importance. I think he should be bottom. Any input? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a Borg Defense article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Borg Defense. 231 91 Pa ( chat me!) 07:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on Bobby Fischer on and off for years, and think that it can be raised to GA status with a little more work. What does everyone think? Krakatoa ( talk) 09:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but is there a standard way of recording half-points in chess-related articles? I've seen quite a few with (eg) XYZ scored 8.5/13, but I personally prefer the look of 8½/13. Not a big deal but just something I was wondering about. Fletch79 ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Chess_position has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
SunCreator (
talk)
00:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What are opinions about Alexandra Obolentseva? It was created by a single-purpose account. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
George H. D. Gossip (recently nominated for Today's featured article) uses the format of alternating images left and right. I added another photograph, with the result that I have to flip some images from left to right, and vice versa, to maintain the alternation. In the last section, there are two diagrams on the right, followed further down in the section by two diagrams on the left. I have tried to flip them (putting the right diagrams on the left, and the left diagrams on the right). Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to do this. Can someone more technically adept than I help with this? Thanks! Krakatoa ( talk) 06:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why we need to assess articles by quality: thus becomes clear which of them should be improved, but I absolutely do not understand why we need to classify articles by "top" or "low" importantce". A grandmaster, who devoted all his life to chess, would be disheartened to know that Wikipedia consider him as low important. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 05:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Chess players like Vladimir Alatortsev, Lev Alburt, Nana Alexandria, Vladimir Bagirov, Elisabeth Bykova (!!!), Murray Chandler, Larry Christiansen, Victor Ciocâltea and many others are rated as Low-Important. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. -- MrsHudson ( talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
On the Zugzwang talk page a user suggests putting FEN with the diagrams. Of course, if we do it there, we should do it in many places. It is not a bad idea but it would be a lot of work. What do you think? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Didn't even know such a thing as Wikpedia books existed. SunCreator ( talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
K. K. Karanja may have an edit war starting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.193.40 ( talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The Alexander Alekhine article says "In 1941, he ... won a mini-match with Benito Lopez Esnaola in Vitoria". Problem is, it doesn't say which Vitoria (surely it's the one in Spain, but I don't want to guess). I've searched the web and can't find anything. Could someone here answer this for me? Thanks, -- JaGa talk 14:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this: Canadian Chess Grandmasters There doesn't seem to be a great deal of point to the article, and the information it contains is almost all in the list of chess grandmasters article. Any thoughts as to whether it should be deleted? Fletch79 ( talk) 22:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
First post on a discussion page! I would like to suggest an addition to the United States Chess League page.
Prior to the creation of the United States Chess League in 2005, a previous attempt to start a United States chess league occurred back in 1976, with the formation of the "National Chess League". 9 teams participated, finishing in the following order
1. Washington Plumbers 2. New York Threats 3. Cleveland Kinghunters 4. San Francisco Dragons 5. Los Angeles Stauntons 6. Miama Capablancas 7. Chicago Prairie Dogs 8. Boston 64s 9. Houston Helpmates
In the pre-Internet era, moves were made by phone calls.
The league lasted up the late 1970's, but I have no other information
GrahamClayton ( talk) 09:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please have a look at David and Goliath mate and Damiano's bishop mate and tell me if you think these are notable enough to be worth an article ? I would suggest to delete the former and merge the latter in Damiano's mate. SyG ( talk) 16:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
PS. When I added the Swallow's tail mate I was a bit uncertain as to how it was most commonly phrased. Schiller listed it as "Swallows-Tail mate", while other sources I saw listed it as "Swallowstail mate", "Swallow's tail mate", and "Swallow's mate". I used "Swallow's tail mate" though since that seemed to be the most commonly used. Chhe ( talk) 23:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe the correct translation is 64 - Chess Review. -- I Do Care ( talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Round-robin tournament and Swiss-system tournament have been removed from this project and added to the sports and to the games projects. Do you agree with this? Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Zoran Lazetich - Is he notable enough? -- MrsHudson ( talk) 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I added Bogart because he was a chess player (expert level it is said) and organized tournaments. I added it to the Bottom importance category when I thought they would be articles that had something about chess but would not be in the chess project. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Bogart has a section with two paragraphs about chess. However, I would be in favor of removing from the project most of the articles about people for whom the chess content is a small part of their bio, for instance
and probalbly
And although Marcel Duchamp was primarily an artist, I think his chess contributions are notable enough to keep his article in the project.
I'm also in favor of removing art and litt things that have no real chess content, e.g.
I'm also in favor of removing puzzles and problems that refer to chess pieces but otherwise have no chess content, e.g.
And also
I've made some edits to one of the {{ chess diagram}} templates to try and improve it's accessibility by setting the alt text to better values. The code is at User:H2g2bob/chess diagram small, and I've also got User:H2g2bob/chess diagram test case to compare with the normal version.
They should look identical unless you've disabled images, are using a screen reader or doing some other magic. But in lynx, the start is displayed as:
Start of chess board. a8 black rook. d8 black queen. f8 black rook. g8 black king. a7 black pawn. b7 black pawn. e7 black pawn. f7 black pawn. g7 black bishop. h7 black pawn.
rather than the current template's:
Chess zhor 22.png Chess zver 22.png a8 rd b8 c8 d8 qd e8 f8 rd g8 kd h8 Chess zver 22.png a7 pd b7 pd c7 d7 e7 pd f7 pd g7 bd h7 pd
I've only done "chess diagram small" so far, but I'm willing to do the other templates if it looks like a good idea. -- h2g2bob ( talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Recently there have been a few edits to Four Knights Game and Halloween Gambit which I feel cast the knight sacrifice in a better light than what published theory holds. Some of the things which worry me are:
Even Tim Krabbe's article A breeze in the sleepy Four Knights Game which interviews some of the players behind playing it acknowledge that: "objectively, after 4.Nxe5, White is probably lost". Personally, I am also very sceptical of the line's ultimate soundness, because if this were a gambit White could play with confidence that it will stand up to a sturdy Black defense, we would be seeing this gambit at 2600+ level GM tournaments, but we don't. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I proposed that George H. D. Gossip be added to the list of requests for Today's featured article. It has a respectable three "points" for being today's featured article on December 6: one point because December 6 is Gossip's birthday, and two points because no similar article (i.e., no article related to chess, or any other board game for that matter) has been today's featured article within six months of the requested date. George H. D. Gossip is the only chess-related Featured Article that has not been on the main page. The others - Chess, The Turk, and First-move advantage in chess - have been. Krakatoa ( talk) 08:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) It has been approved and will appear on the Main Page on December 6 - i.e., beginning less than a hour and twenty minutes from now! Krakatoa ( talk) 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a bit of editing on the London Chess Classic article, and wanted to get some advice from this WikiProject on how best to update it tomorrow, when the tournament finishes. If possible, I'd like to bring it up to a standard good enough for an 'in the news' entry (hopefully the result will be covered by the mainstream media in London and the UK). What I was thinking was more photos (I will be there tomorrow and will try and take some suitable pictures), and a results table, and lots more that can be added. Maybe include the game that wins the tournament best game prize? But I'm coming here for advice, either here or on the article talk page, on how best to update and expand this sort of article. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)