![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
A new
File:Barnstar for Chess.png is now available for any Wikipedian to use:
To use it, you just need to specify what size to use, since the uploaded version is rather large. For example, the above image is specified to appear as 200px wide. H Padleckas ( talk) 08:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I created two stubs recently: Karen Grigorian and American Chess Bulletin. Couldn't find out much else about them, so any help expanding or improving them would be great. I'm hoping to contribute a bit more to the chess articles around here (mainly the biographies and the history ones), and have a few books ready to go through. If I want advice, is this the best place to come? Oh, one other thing: I failed to get around to doing an in the news item on the London Chess Classic, but I'm thinking that when the new list comes out in January, that some hook could be done on Magnus Carlsen being the new number one, and the youngest as well. Again, it depends whether it gets much beyond the normal chess columns and websites, as ITN has fairly strict standards on what to include. Last question: is there a way to get a list of new articles? Ah, I see... User:AlexNewArtBot/ChessSearchResult. Possibly a false positive here. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I recently created and tagged Category:Chess memorial tournaments. It may be better as a list (see here for a userspace list), but I thought I'd see if a category would work. I used "class=category" in the wikiproject tag, but I could only see templates among the NA-Class articles tagged by this WikiProject. Are categories meant to be tagged or not, or is there another tag to use, or snapshots of the categories maintained somewhere? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words, small whole numbers in text should usually be spelled out: one, two, three, ... nine. This also applies to ordinal numbers: first, second, third, ... So it is "first place", not "1st place". These can be abbreviated in a table or info box.
Cryptic things like "=1st 37 YUG-ch" should be written out. We can deciper that, but many readers can't. Wikipedia is not Twitter. Write out what you mean: "tied for first place in the 37th Yugoslov championship", and link to Yugoslav Chess Championship if it isn't already linked.
Don't start sentences with digits, e.g. "12. Qh4". Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish a great year 2010 to all members of the WikiProject Chess ! SyG ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this was already discussed here however now that FIDE switched to 2 months rating lists, it seems that many players will have outdated ratings here. I wonder if there is any sense in keeping them, maybe we should just have the peak rating. Dr. Loosmark 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
From Talk:International Arbiter (I got no answer) :
Also, there are international arbiters in other sports, e.g. soccer. Oyp ( talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem editor editing Samuel Sevian. He is a new member of the project, but is causing problems with that article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(Indent) Nominated for deletion. SunCreator ( talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oyp don't added useless thing ther is o ready a citation by an International master that wrote an article about him is the LA times. And if you want more citation i recommend you look for them yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that GSP-Rush is a troll who is making grammar mistakes on purpose. Dr. Loosmark 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of chess pages include itsyourturn.com spam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=itsyourturn.com&go=Go
It's like someone adds in a subtle variation which for some reason demands a link to their website for explanation. I don't think it would hurt wikipedia to remove these, or rewrite them in a generic sense, so that every chess game type doesn't have itsyourturn.com plastered all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.217.123 ( talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Samuel Sevian survived the AfD. I think the article has way too many trivial details about each of his tournaments and each rating change. Please give an opinion. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Samuel Sevian. One section is a list of all of his most recent tournaments and their corresponding rating change. I think this is too much unnecessary information. Even top players such as Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov don't have this level of detail, and they played in notable tournaments instead of the non-notable tournaments Sevian played in.
Please give an opinion on the article's talk page or make a change to the article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 20:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
First this is not the an appropriate link wp:ISNOT#Content, it talk about the difference between wikipedia and a dictionary whit has nothing to do whit this article. Also you didn't properly quote this part and this part actually favour me WP:NOT#STATS. You see it clearly says that stats sheet can be confusing to the readers. That being sayed we can conclude that the article aren't meant to be confusing to the readers. Witch bring us to keeping the stats since it indicate why his last rating is so far above his rating in the monthly list ( you see the USCF has done an error, it hasn't properly kept track of ther rating changes and it publish the list way before it due release date). Also stating that two ( unknown ) editors in the chess project have given ther opinion isn't inuff you half to specify who and give me a link to wat they sayed. Also they should come on this page read wat i wrote and then comment on it and explain how wat am saying is bad and why they think it should be kept.
Am sorry but you haven't given me any valid arguments on why we should remove it ( actually you favour my cause ). All you did is given me 1 false link and then given me a link that talk about confusing the readers ( witch is wat removing the list would do ). Am gonna half to undo it. Once you give me valid argument and more support then one guy who hasn't justified his opinion ( he just stated something and didn't validate his point ) and 2 random unknown editors whit out the link to ther argument then we might take it off. GSP-Rush ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is talk for the page please stop taking everything out of context and verify before you agree whit something or not.
Also you could have 100 people on this article that say it should be remove that wouldn't matter. As long as it in the rule of wikipedia and you guys are not able to prove that it not then must stay.
Also to Bubba73 stating that an article is not important show great ignorance, don't state that any approve article is unimportant.
I didn't hear one argument on this page or Samuel Sevian talk page all it is, is Bubba73 stating it in way that make you want to agree and not looking at the other side. Then just agreeing and making a random decision.
And last but not least ther no such thing as to much information. Ther is useful information and useless information. This give a better understand of Samuel Sevian position and tell why ther is a major difference between wat the USCF rating list and his current rating. The USCF made an error if you delete you just pushing people ignorance. GSP-Rush ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A few weeks ago World Championship in Composing for Individuals was changed to World Championship of Chess Composition. Now there are discussions to change it back, since the former is the actual name. Please see the discussion page and give input. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
Hi! I'm from WikiProject Chess at portuguese wikipedia. Unfortunatelly, the only one editing about chess issues there. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to got your opinion about "chess pieces". Here's the thing: Recently pt:Rei (xadrez) received FA status and I've been working on Queen, Rook and Bishop articles. Well I divided king article in five sections: origin and etymology, designing, movement, "King's role during a match" and "The figure of the king in other variants". My first doubt is about this article itself. Did I forget something important? If you guys look at internal links I covered a lot of chess terms and most of refs are in english.
Queens article its almost done but I'm waiting for 3 books I bought to put more refs. This article is a little bit different from king's because I don't have any ideas to explore at designing section (Do you agree?) otherwise I can explore origin and etymology with develop of queen's movement. Move section will be ridiculous because there's nothing cool to explain but I believe it's a required section. At Queen's role I will explore a Queen sacrifice to ilustrate a match, which one do you prefer: A active sacrifice, a passive one (like bobby fischer in the Match of the century) or both? Well, I think that's enough for now. Thanks a lot! Best Regards OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a debate about whether or not Samuel Sevian is a Candidate Master. See the article's talk page and history. Opinions are welcome. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd highlight my inquiry here. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AChess_opening&action=historysubmit&diff=344432612&oldid=333709348 . Thanks!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The article of the chess world number one has become the most popular chess article of any substance being easily more viewed then Chess. The problem is the article is written in a list format. Is there anyone that is willing and able to change it to an encyclopedic prose based article. SunCreator ( talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this is a real chess historian? Has anyone got any of his books. I found one on Google books(scroll through the pages and see if you recognise any of it, like familiar pictures). I'm a little suspicious not having heard of the name before and more so having seen that intro on Google books. SunCreator ( talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thie link [1] is somewhat incorrect as not all Chess studies are endgames. Do we have any other articles on Chess studies? SunCreator ( talk) 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the biographical articles have many details of the player's tournaments. "Tied for 11-13th in Paris, 1982. Finished 17th in Bonn in 1983...". A lot of these are even with scores below 50%! I think this is getting into too much detail. What if we limit mentioning tournament places to the top 3, except in a few special cases? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
and there are others as low as seventh place. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this didn't get listed as a chess article? SunCreator ( talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to add the following, as I am a student of AI researching chess this year and for some reason this does not really seem to be implied anywhere on this article:
Mathematically, a computer will always beat or draw a human at chess, assuming that the computer has the processing power to perform the required calculations and the human brain at best can match the processing ability of the computer opponent. This is due to the finite number of moves involved in a chess game and zero probability of the computer making a mistake.
I have tried to add this, but Bubba73 says it's implied in the Solved section, I do not believe that this is so, in fact it implies the contradction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
signed: 09:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib ( talk • contribs)
Singed: Shahee.saib ( talk) 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib
Thank you for the feedback, clearly my knowledge on the subject has many holes that need to be covered, I appreciate the response. I was just under the impression that if something was mathematically sound (which for chess, semms to be debatable) it could be programmed into a computer (or chimpanzee) and if we had the correct amount of resources, it would be considered 'solved'. This was simply an observation made by looking at how checkers and other similar games were solved. I aim to study this further and contribute to this more effectively in future.
Thanks 196.2.97.165 ( talk) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib
Is anyone using the User:AlexNewArtBot bot to find new chess articles? Sometimes articles are added and the editor doesn't add the project tag. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Autotagging of article based on categories is also possible. I imagine a bot can find many article in chess categories that we have not marked with a WikiProjectChess assessment temaplte. Shall we find out? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of the project and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.
Xenobot Mk V ( talk · contribs) looks for a {{ stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class from other projects (see here for further details).
If there are any questions or objections regarding this process, please make them known. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are none.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any articles requiring a Good Article review? I recently did reviews of a few none chess ones. You can submit them to WP:GAN (5.4.3 Sports and recreation section). Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a book of Wikipedia chess articles has been published. Only $83 for a printed copy of Opposite-colored bishops endgame, Chess, Bishop (chess), Chessboard, Chess endgame, Edmar Mednis, Glossary of chess, Fortress (chess), Checkmate, and World Chess Championship. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Philipp Stamma and Luis Ramírez de Lucena have info boxes. These info boxes have photos of their book instead of the person. No images of the people seem to be available. I am of the opinion that the photos of their books should not be used as the photo in the info box. What do others think? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll add them. While looking for Lucena and Stamma I found this page that has photos of old chess books, players of tournaments, and individual players. Most or all of the individual player photos we already have. Most of the tournament and book photos I haven't seen before. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)More then 70 years, is that since they died, or since photo taken? Anyhow here are some more that seem to comply.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And more...
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Some deceased players requiring photo or improvement.
I did all of these except Schorn and Wyvill and the two you marked out. I think they are too obscure to put the effort in. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I did Wyvill since he was listed on the main page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit of fun. Improve a random Chess article; this link takes you to a different random article each time you click on it. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The section that lists the game moves for some of the the articles in
Category:Chess games aren't all that consistent. Certainly the game moves should be in bold, but is there a common convention as to whether it should be the annotations, or the moves, that should be indented...or neither? All three can be seen, for example
Deep Blue – Kasparov, 1996, Game 1,
Immortal Game,
Evergreen Game. Has there been any desire to standardize this? I put an attempt to make the
Polish Immortal game look more consistent here in my
sandbox(now merged with
article main page), but I'm not sure about the indentation, (and haven't checked for typos or anything yet...just a formatting issue so far) Thanks.
Winston365 (
talk)
10:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me the article Solving chess has a lot of redundancy (in terms of concept) to our First-move advantage in chess, so I would tend to merge them. What do you think ? SyG ( talk) 11:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I picked this article up on new page patrol. The subject seems to lack "significant coverage in reliable sources" so may be a candidate for deletion, but thought I might post it here before sending it to AfD as this wikiproject will obviously have a better idea of the notability of chess players than me. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is one example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The book "The History of Chess from the time of the early invention of the game in India" written by Duncan Forbes (1860) states clearly at page 18 and 19 that our Rook was an elephant and our Bishop (chess) was a ship in chaturanga (or Chaturaji?). Is this book a reliable source? thanks OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have got the list of chess pieces names in Urdu, so can somebody add them. Here they are, if rendered properly
- King = بادشاہ
- Queen = وزیر
- Rook = رخ
- Bishop = فیل
- Knight = گھوڑا
- Pawn = پیادہ
Some people also uses:
- King = شاہ
- Queen = ملکہ
- Rook = توپ
- Bishop = ہاتھی
- Knight = گھوڑا
- Pawn = پیدل / سپاہی
They are also used in Persian Chess/ Mughal Chess. .-- yousaf465' 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The old issue of whether or not it is correct to call a rook a "castle" has flared up again. See that article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently some of the most fundamental articles such as chess, rules of chess, Chess piece, king (chess), queen (chess), rook (chess), bishop (chess), knight (chess), and pawn (chess) do not use any algebraic notation. I think that is a good thing - keep those general articles as accessible to the general reader as possible. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to straignten out the history of the fifty-move rule, mainly when it was extended to more than 50 moves, see Fifty-move rule#History. Decades ago the fIDE laws said that it could be extended for certain positions if it was agreed upon in advance. The laws did not specify what positions, but there seems to have been an understanding about what those positions were. In 1984 the rule was changed to be more specific - 100 moves on three types of positions. The rule was changed again in 1988 - adding some more positions but changing the 100-move extension to 75 moves. Some sources say that the 75-move version lasted only a short time "a year or so" or a "few years", and then went to 50 moves for all positions. The FIDE laws in the 1992 USCF rulebook go back to the (vague) pre-1984 wording (about extended for some positions). I suspect this was an error and the change back to a universal 50 moves was in 1992, but I'm not sure. It did occur by 2001.
So the sticking point is when was the rule changed from 75 moves for some positions to 50 moves for all? Does anyone know? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct 8th move for black in the main line of the classical King's Indian Defence (see recent edits)? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Athlete notability upon which many of the chess players are based is being discussed Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement because Athlete-Entertainer notability is wildly at odds. You may like to check out and comment. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently noticed that The Immortal Game had a nice .gif animation of the game, and for fun I threw together a python script that can automatically produce such animations from a .pgn file. I put one on the Evergreen Game page and I think it's nice, although for the most part I think animated gifs should be kept to a minimum on wikipedia. Does anyone think any more of these might be useful for other chess game articles? Also the animation I put on was created with a second between each frame as the description of the animation on the immortal game says, but I realize now the immortal game animation has been slowed to two seconds between frames. Should the Evergreen Game animation be slowed as well, or even just reverted? Cheers Winston365 ( talk) 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone who is familiar with Robert Sobel please take a look at these recent changes by an ip editor? He claims that Robert Sobel the history professor is not the Robert Sobel who played a young Bobby Fischer in 1956 and 1957. If we can compare birth dates that should settle it, or someone may have some other evidence. His NY Times obit is listed in the references but is not linked. I haven't put the link in the article yet as I don't want to disturb the page if the anon edits must be reversed. The obit is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/04/business/robert-sobel-68-a-historian-of-business-dies.html. It doesn't help us directly as it doesn't mention chess, although Sobel returned to New York in 1955 after service in the Korean War putting him in the right place at the right time to have played Fischer. The Robert Sobel player profile and games at Chessgames.com claims that he is the Sobel who played Fischer, but I'd be happier with a stronger source. Quale ( talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparent Grandmaster but cannot find him on http://ratings.fide.com/? Any ideas? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
4132394 Belov, Vladimir g RUS 2619 18 1984
I recently developed a mediawiki extension to show chessgames by just adding the PGN file content to the article with a pgn tag: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EmbedChessboard
See example here: http://pgn4web-test-mediawiki.casaschi.net
It would work on wikipedia as well, but the extension would need to be added to the wikipedia server.
Any interest?
It might not be easy to get an extension installed on the wikipedia server, but I was told to suggest the extension here first.
Casaschi ( talk) 07:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have created this new page, European Chess Club Cup, and I think it would be good if you guys helped improve it. ( LAz17 ( talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)).
This is the rather original opinion of Resource Based Economy ( talk · contribs), according to which he deleted a whole paragraph in the article Cheating in chess. Since this very new contributor seems to find it difficult to acknowledge that opinions other than his own exist, please comment. Oyp ( talk) 11:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been concerned about how we use chessmetrics ratings in our chess bios for some time. I think it's especially confusing when applied to players with official FIDE ratings. Here's an example from Yuri Razuvaev:
I'm not sure what a reader is supposed to take from this. What meaning should one derive from "equivalent to a rating of 2690, and he was ranked number 28 in the world"? As you know, FIDE has published official ratings since 1971. Games played in December 1984 would have been reflected on the January 1985 list or perhaps the July 1985 list. His rating was unchanged from the Jan to July 1985 lists at 2520, ranking 69th in January and 63rd in July. I find it disturbing when an "equivalent to" rating differs from the official FIDE rating by 170 points, and the ranking is different by 40 from the position on the FIDE lists.
Apparently Razuvaev's peak FIDE rating was 2625, found on the July 1983 list. This also gave him his peak rank, 5th in the world following Karpov (2710), Kasparov (2690), Ljubojevic (2645), and Ulf Andersson (2640). This rating seems anomalous compared to the lists immediately before and after. His rating in Jan 1983 was 2520, over 100 points lower, and in Jan 1984 it was 2500. This is outside the top 50 players on both lists. Olimpbase has scanned images of the pages from Chess Informant 35 which confirm that 2625 was published, but an error is still possible. Despite my complaints about chessmetrics, I think it is more likely that FIDE made a mistake in its calculations in 1983 than chessmetrics has made an error in its retrospective computations for that period. The problem is that chessmetrics numbers can only be compared to other chessmetrics numbers. Quale ( talk) 07:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
# | FIDE | Chessmetrics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Kasparov, Garry | 2775 | Garry Kasparov | 2879 |
2 | Karpov, Anatoly | 2750 | Anatoly Karpov | 2845 |
3 | Short, Nigel D. | 2650 | Alexander Beliavsky | 2749 |
4 | Speelman, Jonathan S. | 2640 | Valery Salov | 2744 |
5 | Beliavsky, Alexander G. | 2640 | Nigel Short | 2742 |
6 | Ivanchuk, Vassily | 2635 | Vassily Ivanchuk | 2738 |
7 | Salov, Valery | 2630 | Jan Timman | 2738 |
8 | Ribli, Zoltan | 2625 | Jonathan Speelman | 2734 |
9 | Nunn, John D. M. | 2620 | Lajos Portisch | 2723 |
10 | Andersson, Ulf | 2620 | Artur Jussupow | 2721 |
I'm not making the assumption that chessmetrics ratings are about 100 points out from FIDE ratings. That's what it looks like from my cursory examination of the top ten in 1989, but you'd have to examine more players in 1989 and over the whole period of 1971 to 2005 or so (I don't think Sonas has a newer number on his site) to get an accurate idea how they might compare. I'm familiar with Short's statement about ratings inflation, and although I think he's right, I think it qualifies as his opinion rather than proof. (John Nunn is a mathematician, and his opinion would be valuable here. I don't know if he's made a definitive statement about this.) Some have suggested that ratings may be inflated about 150 points today compared to 1971, but ratings inflation remains at least somewhat controversial.
Chessmetrics ratings have some attractive qualities: we have them for years before FIDE ratings exist and they might not be subject to the same inflation that FIDE numbers are. There are some problems too. The biggest issue might be that we don't have any chessmetrics ratings from 2005 on which undercuts their use going forward. Also they are produced by a single person, and I don't think anyone validates his work. I think it's unlikely, but if Sonas were to make some systematic error it would probably never be caught. Because they are produced by a single person, he's free to change the algorithm and hence the ratings at any time he likes. I think this has happened once already. Chessmetrics applies a ratings penalty to inactive players, and while this makes sense in a sporting context (Nunn suggested selecting World Championship participants by rating including such a penalty), it isn't clear to some people that this is an accurate measure of chess strength. (On the other hand, an inactive player retaining his rating for many decades is also not realistic.)
For what it's worth, my personal view of use of chess ratings in wikipedia:
For those interested in old FIDE rating lists, the easiest place to check that I know of is http://www.olimpbase.org/index.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olimpbase.org%2FElo%2Fsummary.html. Be aware that the early list data from 1970 to 2001 have been entered by hand from scanned paper copies and there are some mistakes. Olimpbase provides scanned images of the lists from the original source (generally Chess Informant) so you can check, but FIDE made mistakes in the lists too. Electronic copies of the FIDE rating lists from January 2001 on are available directly from FIDE at ratings.fide.com/download/MMMYYfrl.zip. FIDE only links recent years from its web pages, but older years can be retrieved directly from the url, e.g., http://ratings.fide.com/download/jan01frl.zip. Quale ( talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
ok I have read the article the Ratings inflation and deflation senction on the Elo rating system and I must say that the first sentence is a bit weird to say the least: An increase or decrease in the average rating over all players in the rating system is often referred to as rating inflation or rating deflation respectively. For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500, while the reverse is true if there is deflation. Using ratings to compare players between different eras is made more difficult when inflation and deflation is present.
The definition of the rating inflation is bizarre to say the least. Lets say that 100,000 new players enter the rating system tomorrow and all of them are rated 1000 ELO points. The average rating over all players in the rating system would go down however I doubt that anybody would talk about the rating deflation because the ratings of the top players would remain exactly the same. Usually what most people perceive as rating "inflation" is for example when some of the current top players have "too high" ratings in comparison with "Fischer(or Karpov, or Kasparov or whoever) at his peak. Of course that's a complete nonsense because the Elo system can't measure the "absolute strength" of a player. The only thing that a rating system measures is results against players in a specific pools of players. In other words Carlsen's or Topalov's rating of today cannot in any way be compared with Fischer's for example. No rating system cannot do that, not ELO not Chessmetrics nor any other. The above sentence: For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500 is therefore a complete nonsense. Dr. Loosmark 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The following articles contain the case insensitive word 'Chessmetrics', found with AWB searching Category:WikiProject Chess articles.
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
A new
File:Barnstar for Chess.png is now available for any Wikipedian to use:
To use it, you just need to specify what size to use, since the uploaded version is rather large. For example, the above image is specified to appear as 200px wide. H Padleckas ( talk) 08:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I created two stubs recently: Karen Grigorian and American Chess Bulletin. Couldn't find out much else about them, so any help expanding or improving them would be great. I'm hoping to contribute a bit more to the chess articles around here (mainly the biographies and the history ones), and have a few books ready to go through. If I want advice, is this the best place to come? Oh, one other thing: I failed to get around to doing an in the news item on the London Chess Classic, but I'm thinking that when the new list comes out in January, that some hook could be done on Magnus Carlsen being the new number one, and the youngest as well. Again, it depends whether it gets much beyond the normal chess columns and websites, as ITN has fairly strict standards on what to include. Last question: is there a way to get a list of new articles? Ah, I see... User:AlexNewArtBot/ChessSearchResult. Possibly a false positive here. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I recently created and tagged Category:Chess memorial tournaments. It may be better as a list (see here for a userspace list), but I thought I'd see if a category would work. I used "class=category" in the wikiproject tag, but I could only see templates among the NA-Class articles tagged by this WikiProject. Are categories meant to be tagged or not, or is there another tag to use, or snapshots of the categories maintained somewhere? Carcharoth ( talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words, small whole numbers in text should usually be spelled out: one, two, three, ... nine. This also applies to ordinal numbers: first, second, third, ... So it is "first place", not "1st place". These can be abbreviated in a table or info box.
Cryptic things like "=1st 37 YUG-ch" should be written out. We can deciper that, but many readers can't. Wikipedia is not Twitter. Write out what you mean: "tied for first place in the 37th Yugoslov championship", and link to Yugoslav Chess Championship if it isn't already linked.
Don't start sentences with digits, e.g. "12. Qh4". Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 17:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I wish a great year 2010 to all members of the WikiProject Chess ! SyG ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this was already discussed here however now that FIDE switched to 2 months rating lists, it seems that many players will have outdated ratings here. I wonder if there is any sense in keeping them, maybe we should just have the peak rating. Dr. Loosmark 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
From Talk:International Arbiter (I got no answer) :
Also, there are international arbiters in other sports, e.g. soccer. Oyp ( talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem editor editing Samuel Sevian. He is a new member of the project, but is causing problems with that article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
(Indent) Nominated for deletion. SunCreator ( talk) 18:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oyp don't added useless thing ther is o ready a citation by an International master that wrote an article about him is the LA times. And if you want more citation i recommend you look for them yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GSP-Rush ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that GSP-Rush is a troll who is making grammar mistakes on purpose. Dr. Loosmark 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed a lot of chess pages include itsyourturn.com spam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=itsyourturn.com&go=Go
It's like someone adds in a subtle variation which for some reason demands a link to their website for explanation. I don't think it would hurt wikipedia to remove these, or rewrite them in a generic sense, so that every chess game type doesn't have itsyourturn.com plastered all over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.217.123 ( talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Samuel Sevian survived the AfD. I think the article has way too many trivial details about each of his tournaments and each rating change. Please give an opinion. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 04:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at Samuel Sevian. One section is a list of all of his most recent tournaments and their corresponding rating change. I think this is too much unnecessary information. Even top players such as Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov don't have this level of detail, and they played in notable tournaments instead of the non-notable tournaments Sevian played in.
Please give an opinion on the article's talk page or make a change to the article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 20:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
First this is not the an appropriate link wp:ISNOT#Content, it talk about the difference between wikipedia and a dictionary whit has nothing to do whit this article. Also you didn't properly quote this part and this part actually favour me WP:NOT#STATS. You see it clearly says that stats sheet can be confusing to the readers. That being sayed we can conclude that the article aren't meant to be confusing to the readers. Witch bring us to keeping the stats since it indicate why his last rating is so far above his rating in the monthly list ( you see the USCF has done an error, it hasn't properly kept track of ther rating changes and it publish the list way before it due release date). Also stating that two ( unknown ) editors in the chess project have given ther opinion isn't inuff you half to specify who and give me a link to wat they sayed. Also they should come on this page read wat i wrote and then comment on it and explain how wat am saying is bad and why they think it should be kept.
Am sorry but you haven't given me any valid arguments on why we should remove it ( actually you favour my cause ). All you did is given me 1 false link and then given me a link that talk about confusing the readers ( witch is wat removing the list would do ). Am gonna half to undo it. Once you give me valid argument and more support then one guy who hasn't justified his opinion ( he just stated something and didn't validate his point ) and 2 random unknown editors whit out the link to ther argument then we might take it off. GSP-Rush ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This is talk for the page please stop taking everything out of context and verify before you agree whit something or not.
Also you could have 100 people on this article that say it should be remove that wouldn't matter. As long as it in the rule of wikipedia and you guys are not able to prove that it not then must stay.
Also to Bubba73 stating that an article is not important show great ignorance, don't state that any approve article is unimportant.
I didn't hear one argument on this page or Samuel Sevian talk page all it is, is Bubba73 stating it in way that make you want to agree and not looking at the other side. Then just agreeing and making a random decision.
And last but not least ther no such thing as to much information. Ther is useful information and useless information. This give a better understand of Samuel Sevian position and tell why ther is a major difference between wat the USCF rating list and his current rating. The USCF made an error if you delete you just pushing people ignorance. GSP-Rush ( talk) 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A few weeks ago World Championship in Composing for Individuals was changed to World Championship of Chess Composition. Now there are discussions to change it back, since the former is the actual name. Please see the discussion page and give input. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all,
Hi! I'm from WikiProject Chess at portuguese wikipedia. Unfortunatelly, the only one editing about chess issues there. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to got your opinion about "chess pieces". Here's the thing: Recently pt:Rei (xadrez) received FA status and I've been working on Queen, Rook and Bishop articles. Well I divided king article in five sections: origin and etymology, designing, movement, "King's role during a match" and "The figure of the king in other variants". My first doubt is about this article itself. Did I forget something important? If you guys look at internal links I covered a lot of chess terms and most of refs are in english.
Queens article its almost done but I'm waiting for 3 books I bought to put more refs. This article is a little bit different from king's because I don't have any ideas to explore at designing section (Do you agree?) otherwise I can explore origin and etymology with develop of queen's movement. Move section will be ridiculous because there's nothing cool to explain but I believe it's a required section. At Queen's role I will explore a Queen sacrifice to ilustrate a match, which one do you prefer: A active sacrifice, a passive one (like bobby fischer in the Match of the century) or both? Well, I think that's enough for now. Thanks a lot! Best Regards OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a debate about whether or not Samuel Sevian is a Candidate Master. See the article's talk page and history. Opinions are welcome. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd highlight my inquiry here. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AChess_opening&action=historysubmit&diff=344432612&oldid=333709348 . Thanks!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 16:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The article of the chess world number one has become the most popular chess article of any substance being easily more viewed then Chess. The problem is the article is written in a list format. Is there anyone that is willing and able to change it to an encyclopedic prose based article. SunCreator ( talk) 16:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone verify this is a real chess historian? Has anyone got any of his books. I found one on Google books(scroll through the pages and see if you recognise any of it, like familiar pictures). I'm a little suspicious not having heard of the name before and more so having seen that intro on Google books. SunCreator ( talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thie link [1] is somewhat incorrect as not all Chess studies are endgames. Do we have any other articles on Chess studies? SunCreator ( talk) 13:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the biographical articles have many details of the player's tournaments. "Tied for 11-13th in Paris, 1982. Finished 17th in Bonn in 1983...". A lot of these are even with scores below 50%! I think this is getting into too much detail. What if we limit mentioning tournament places to the top 3, except in a few special cases? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
and there are others as low as seventh place. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know why this didn't get listed as a chess article? SunCreator ( talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I would like to add the following, as I am a student of AI researching chess this year and for some reason this does not really seem to be implied anywhere on this article:
Mathematically, a computer will always beat or draw a human at chess, assuming that the computer has the processing power to perform the required calculations and the human brain at best can match the processing ability of the computer opponent. This is due to the finite number of moves involved in a chess game and zero probability of the computer making a mistake.
I have tried to add this, but Bubba73 says it's implied in the Solved section, I do not believe that this is so, in fact it implies the contradction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
signed: 09:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahee.saib ( talk • contribs)
Singed: Shahee.saib ( talk) 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib
Thank you for the feedback, clearly my knowledge on the subject has many holes that need to be covered, I appreciate the response. I was just under the impression that if something was mathematically sound (which for chess, semms to be debatable) it could be programmed into a computer (or chimpanzee) and if we had the correct amount of resources, it would be considered 'solved'. This was simply an observation made by looking at how checkers and other similar games were solved. I aim to study this further and contribute to this more effectively in future.
Thanks 196.2.97.165 ( talk) 06:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Shahee.Saib
Is anyone using the User:AlexNewArtBot bot to find new chess articles? Sometimes articles are added and the editor doesn't add the project tag. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Autotagging of article based on categories is also possible. I imagine a bot can find many article in chess categories that we have not marked with a WikiProjectChess assessment temaplte. Shall we find out? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of the project and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.
Xenobot Mk V ( talk · contribs) looks for a {{ stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class from other projects (see here for further details).
If there are any questions or objections regarding this process, please make them known. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are none.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any articles requiring a Good Article review? I recently did reviews of a few none chess ones. You can submit them to WP:GAN (5.4.3 Sports and recreation section). Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently a book of Wikipedia chess articles has been published. Only $83 for a printed copy of Opposite-colored bishops endgame, Chess, Bishop (chess), Chessboard, Chess endgame, Edmar Mednis, Glossary of chess, Fortress (chess), Checkmate, and World Chess Championship. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Philipp Stamma and Luis Ramírez de Lucena have info boxes. These info boxes have photos of their book instead of the person. No images of the people seem to be available. I am of the opinion that the photos of their books should not be used as the photo in the info box. What do others think? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll add them. While looking for Lucena and Stamma I found this page that has photos of old chess books, players of tournaments, and individual players. Most or all of the individual player photos we already have. Most of the tournament and book photos I haven't seen before. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)More then 70 years, is that since they died, or since photo taken? Anyhow here are some more that seem to comply.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
And more...
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Some deceased players requiring photo or improvement.
I did all of these except Schorn and Wyvill and the two you marked out. I think they are too obscure to put the effort in. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I did Wyvill since he was listed on the main page. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit of fun. Improve a random Chess article; this link takes you to a different random article each time you click on it. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 03:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The section that lists the game moves for some of the the articles in
Category:Chess games aren't all that consistent. Certainly the game moves should be in bold, but is there a common convention as to whether it should be the annotations, or the moves, that should be indented...or neither? All three can be seen, for example
Deep Blue – Kasparov, 1996, Game 1,
Immortal Game,
Evergreen Game. Has there been any desire to standardize this? I put an attempt to make the
Polish Immortal game look more consistent here in my
sandbox(now merged with
article main page), but I'm not sure about the indentation, (and haven't checked for typos or anything yet...just a formatting issue so far) Thanks.
Winston365 (
talk)
10:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me the article Solving chess has a lot of redundancy (in terms of concept) to our First-move advantage in chess, so I would tend to merge them. What do you think ? SyG ( talk) 11:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I picked this article up on new page patrol. The subject seems to lack "significant coverage in reliable sources" so may be a candidate for deletion, but thought I might post it here before sending it to AfD as this wikiproject will obviously have a better idea of the notability of chess players than me. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Your project uses User:WolterBot, which occasionally gives your project maintenance-related listings.
User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles ( BLPs) related to your project.
Here is one example of a project which uses User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket_articles/Unreferenced_BLPs
There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.
The unreferenced living people articles related to your project will be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Unreferenced BLPs.
If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.
Thank you. Okip 08:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The book "The History of Chess from the time of the early invention of the game in India" written by Duncan Forbes (1860) states clearly at page 18 and 19 that our Rook was an elephant and our Bishop (chess) was a ship in chaturanga (or Chaturaji?). Is this book a reliable source? thanks OTAVIO1981 ( talk) 12:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have got the list of chess pieces names in Urdu, so can somebody add them. Here they are, if rendered properly
- King = بادشاہ
- Queen = وزیر
- Rook = رخ
- Bishop = فیل
- Knight = گھوڑا
- Pawn = پیادہ
Some people also uses:
- King = شاہ
- Queen = ملکہ
- Rook = توپ
- Bishop = ہاتھی
- Knight = گھوڑا
- Pawn = پیدل / سپاہی
They are also used in Persian Chess/ Mughal Chess. .-- yousaf465' 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The old issue of whether or not it is correct to call a rook a "castle" has flared up again. See that article. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Currently some of the most fundamental articles such as chess, rules of chess, Chess piece, king (chess), queen (chess), rook (chess), bishop (chess), knight (chess), and pawn (chess) do not use any algebraic notation. I think that is a good thing - keep those general articles as accessible to the general reader as possible. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 17:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to straignten out the history of the fifty-move rule, mainly when it was extended to more than 50 moves, see Fifty-move rule#History. Decades ago the fIDE laws said that it could be extended for certain positions if it was agreed upon in advance. The laws did not specify what positions, but there seems to have been an understanding about what those positions were. In 1984 the rule was changed to be more specific - 100 moves on three types of positions. The rule was changed again in 1988 - adding some more positions but changing the 100-move extension to 75 moves. Some sources say that the 75-move version lasted only a short time "a year or so" or a "few years", and then went to 50 moves for all positions. The FIDE laws in the 1992 USCF rulebook go back to the (vague) pre-1984 wording (about extended for some positions). I suspect this was an error and the change back to a universal 50 moves was in 1992, but I'm not sure. It did occur by 2001.
So the sticking point is when was the rule changed from 75 moves for some positions to 50 moves for all? Does anyone know? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the correct 8th move for black in the main line of the classical King's Indian Defence (see recent edits)? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Athlete notability upon which many of the chess players are based is being discussed Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement because Athlete-Entertainer notability is wildly at odds. You may like to check out and comment. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 20:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I recently noticed that The Immortal Game had a nice .gif animation of the game, and for fun I threw together a python script that can automatically produce such animations from a .pgn file. I put one on the Evergreen Game page and I think it's nice, although for the most part I think animated gifs should be kept to a minimum on wikipedia. Does anyone think any more of these might be useful for other chess game articles? Also the animation I put on was created with a second between each frame as the description of the animation on the immortal game says, but I realize now the immortal game animation has been slowed to two seconds between frames. Should the Evergreen Game animation be slowed as well, or even just reverted? Cheers Winston365 ( talk) 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Could someone who is familiar with Robert Sobel please take a look at these recent changes by an ip editor? He claims that Robert Sobel the history professor is not the Robert Sobel who played a young Bobby Fischer in 1956 and 1957. If we can compare birth dates that should settle it, or someone may have some other evidence. His NY Times obit is listed in the references but is not linked. I haven't put the link in the article yet as I don't want to disturb the page if the anon edits must be reversed. The obit is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/04/business/robert-sobel-68-a-historian-of-business-dies.html. It doesn't help us directly as it doesn't mention chess, although Sobel returned to New York in 1955 after service in the Korean War putting him in the right place at the right time to have played Fischer. The Robert Sobel player profile and games at Chessgames.com claims that he is the Sobel who played Fischer, but I'd be happier with a stronger source. Quale ( talk) 03:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparent Grandmaster but cannot find him on http://ratings.fide.com/? Any ideas? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
4132394 Belov, Vladimir g RUS 2619 18 1984
I recently developed a mediawiki extension to show chessgames by just adding the PGN file content to the article with a pgn tag: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EmbedChessboard
See example here: http://pgn4web-test-mediawiki.casaschi.net
It would work on wikipedia as well, but the extension would need to be added to the wikipedia server.
Any interest?
It might not be easy to get an extension installed on the wikipedia server, but I was told to suggest the extension here first.
Casaschi ( talk) 07:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have created this new page, European Chess Club Cup, and I think it would be good if you guys helped improve it. ( LAz17 ( talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)).
This is the rather original opinion of Resource Based Economy ( talk · contribs), according to which he deleted a whole paragraph in the article Cheating in chess. Since this very new contributor seems to find it difficult to acknowledge that opinions other than his own exist, please comment. Oyp ( talk) 11:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I've been concerned about how we use chessmetrics ratings in our chess bios for some time. I think it's especially confusing when applied to players with official FIDE ratings. Here's an example from Yuri Razuvaev:
I'm not sure what a reader is supposed to take from this. What meaning should one derive from "equivalent to a rating of 2690, and he was ranked number 28 in the world"? As you know, FIDE has published official ratings since 1971. Games played in December 1984 would have been reflected on the January 1985 list or perhaps the July 1985 list. His rating was unchanged from the Jan to July 1985 lists at 2520, ranking 69th in January and 63rd in July. I find it disturbing when an "equivalent to" rating differs from the official FIDE rating by 170 points, and the ranking is different by 40 from the position on the FIDE lists.
Apparently Razuvaev's peak FIDE rating was 2625, found on the July 1983 list. This also gave him his peak rank, 5th in the world following Karpov (2710), Kasparov (2690), Ljubojevic (2645), and Ulf Andersson (2640). This rating seems anomalous compared to the lists immediately before and after. His rating in Jan 1983 was 2520, over 100 points lower, and in Jan 1984 it was 2500. This is outside the top 50 players on both lists. Olimpbase has scanned images of the pages from Chess Informant 35 which confirm that 2625 was published, but an error is still possible. Despite my complaints about chessmetrics, I think it is more likely that FIDE made a mistake in its calculations in 1983 than chessmetrics has made an error in its retrospective computations for that period. The problem is that chessmetrics numbers can only be compared to other chessmetrics numbers. Quale ( talk) 07:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
# | FIDE | Chessmetrics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Kasparov, Garry | 2775 | Garry Kasparov | 2879 |
2 | Karpov, Anatoly | 2750 | Anatoly Karpov | 2845 |
3 | Short, Nigel D. | 2650 | Alexander Beliavsky | 2749 |
4 | Speelman, Jonathan S. | 2640 | Valery Salov | 2744 |
5 | Beliavsky, Alexander G. | 2640 | Nigel Short | 2742 |
6 | Ivanchuk, Vassily | 2635 | Vassily Ivanchuk | 2738 |
7 | Salov, Valery | 2630 | Jan Timman | 2738 |
8 | Ribli, Zoltan | 2625 | Jonathan Speelman | 2734 |
9 | Nunn, John D. M. | 2620 | Lajos Portisch | 2723 |
10 | Andersson, Ulf | 2620 | Artur Jussupow | 2721 |
I'm not making the assumption that chessmetrics ratings are about 100 points out from FIDE ratings. That's what it looks like from my cursory examination of the top ten in 1989, but you'd have to examine more players in 1989 and over the whole period of 1971 to 2005 or so (I don't think Sonas has a newer number on his site) to get an accurate idea how they might compare. I'm familiar with Short's statement about ratings inflation, and although I think he's right, I think it qualifies as his opinion rather than proof. (John Nunn is a mathematician, and his opinion would be valuable here. I don't know if he's made a definitive statement about this.) Some have suggested that ratings may be inflated about 150 points today compared to 1971, but ratings inflation remains at least somewhat controversial.
Chessmetrics ratings have some attractive qualities: we have them for years before FIDE ratings exist and they might not be subject to the same inflation that FIDE numbers are. There are some problems too. The biggest issue might be that we don't have any chessmetrics ratings from 2005 on which undercuts their use going forward. Also they are produced by a single person, and I don't think anyone validates his work. I think it's unlikely, but if Sonas were to make some systematic error it would probably never be caught. Because they are produced by a single person, he's free to change the algorithm and hence the ratings at any time he likes. I think this has happened once already. Chessmetrics applies a ratings penalty to inactive players, and while this makes sense in a sporting context (Nunn suggested selecting World Championship participants by rating including such a penalty), it isn't clear to some people that this is an accurate measure of chess strength. (On the other hand, an inactive player retaining his rating for many decades is also not realistic.)
For what it's worth, my personal view of use of chess ratings in wikipedia:
For those interested in old FIDE rating lists, the easiest place to check that I know of is http://www.olimpbase.org/index.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olimpbase.org%2FElo%2Fsummary.html. Be aware that the early list data from 1970 to 2001 have been entered by hand from scanned paper copies and there are some mistakes. Olimpbase provides scanned images of the lists from the original source (generally Chess Informant) so you can check, but FIDE made mistakes in the lists too. Electronic copies of the FIDE rating lists from January 2001 on are available directly from FIDE at ratings.fide.com/download/MMMYYfrl.zip. FIDE only links recent years from its web pages, but older years can be retrieved directly from the url, e.g., http://ratings.fide.com/download/jan01frl.zip. Quale ( talk) 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
ok I have read the article the Ratings inflation and deflation senction on the Elo rating system and I must say that the first sentence is a bit weird to say the least: An increase or decrease in the average rating over all players in the rating system is often referred to as rating inflation or rating deflation respectively. For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500, while the reverse is true if there is deflation. Using ratings to compare players between different eras is made more difficult when inflation and deflation is present.
The definition of the rating inflation is bizarre to say the least. Lets say that 100,000 new players enter the rating system tomorrow and all of them are rated 1000 ELO points. The average rating over all players in the rating system would go down however I doubt that anybody would talk about the rating deflation because the ratings of the top players would remain exactly the same. Usually what most people perceive as rating "inflation" is for example when some of the current top players have "too high" ratings in comparison with "Fischer(or Karpov, or Kasparov or whoever) at his peak. Of course that's a complete nonsense because the Elo system can't measure the "absolute strength" of a player. The only thing that a rating system measures is results against players in a specific pools of players. In other words Carlsen's or Topalov's rating of today cannot in any way be compared with Fischer's for example. No rating system cannot do that, not ELO not Chessmetrics nor any other. The above sentence: For example, if there is inflation, a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500 is therefore a complete nonsense. Dr. Loosmark 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The following articles contain the case insensitive word 'Chessmetrics', found with AWB searching Category:WikiProject Chess articles.